Johansen.se

Late last week, American company Boom Supersonic flew faster than the speed of sound with its XB-1 supersonic demonstrator aircraft. It’s now the first piloted non-military aircraft to break the sound barrier since the Concorde was retired from service in 2003.

It’s the first step in Boom’s ambitious goal to have supersonic airliners carry passengers by 2029.

But what exactly is supersonic travel? There are good reasons why it’s not more common, despite the hype.

Boom Supersonic’s XB-1 supersonic demonstrator aircraft during its 11th test flight where it became the first civilian aircraft to fly supersonically since the Concorde.
Boom Supersonic

What is supersonic flight?

The Mach number is defined as a plane’s speed divided by the speed that sound waves move through the air. To “break the sound barrier” means to fly faster than the speed of sound, with Mach numbers greater than 1.

The Mach number is an important ratio: as a plane flies, it disturbs the air in front of it. These disturbances move at the speed of sound. In supersonic flight these disturbances combine to form shock waves around the vehicle.

When people say you can see a fighter jet before you hear it, they’re referring to supersonic flight: fighter jets can travel at around Mach 2.

The sound from the fighter jet is trapped inside its shock wave; until the shock wave moves to your position on the ground, you won’t hear the plane.

Illustration of how disturbances propagate in subsonic, Mach 1, and supersonic flow.
Chabacano/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA

The allure of supersonic travel

For efficiency reasons, most passenger jets cruise slightly slower than the speed of sound, at around Mach 0.8 (this is subsonic flight).

Boom plans to build an airliner called Overture that can fly at Mach 1.7. Flying supersonically can drastically decrease flight times. The company claims a trip from New York to Rome on Overture could take just four hours and 40 minutes, instead of eight hours.

Boom isn’t the only company working on this lofty goal. American firm Spike Aerospace is also developing a supersonic business jet, with the tagline “delivering the world in half the time”.

This is the value proposition of supersonic passenger travel.

In limited ways, it did already exist in the 20th century. However, due to timing, bad luck and the laws of physics, it didn’t continue.

Remember the Concorde?

Designs for supersonic airliners began in the mid-20th century, and by the 1970s we had supersonic passenger flight.

There was the little-known Russian Tupolev-144 and Concorde, a Franco-British supersonic airliner operated by British Airways and Air France from 1976 to 2003.

Concorde had a capacity of up to 128 passengers and cruised at Mach 2. It regularly travelled from London to New York in around three hours. The flights were expensive, mainly shuttling business people and the rich and famous.

British Airways Concorde in flight.
Wikimedia Commons/Eduard Marmet, CC BY-SA

Why supersonic passenger flight didn’t take off

Concorde was designed in the 1960s when it seemed like supersonic passenger transport was going to be the next big thing.

Instead, the Boeing 747 entered commercial service in 1970. Cheap, large and efficient airliners like it blew Concorde out of the water.

Designed to cruise efficiently at supersonic speeds, Concorde was extremely fuel inefficient when taking off and accelerating. Concorde’s expensive, “gas guzzling” nature was a complaint levelled against it for most of its lifetime.

A catastrophic 1973 Paris air show crash of the competing Russian airliner, Tupolev Tu-144, also shifted public perception on supersonic flight safety at a time when many airlines were considering whether or not to purchase Concordes.

Only 20 Concordes were manufactured out of the planned 100. It is still disputed today whether Concorde ever made money for the airlines who operated it.

Illustration of a shock wave propagating from a supersonic aeroplane and hitting the ground to produce a sonic boom.
Cmglee/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA

Noise is a real problem for supersonic flight

Remember the fighter jets? When a plane travels supersonically, its shock waves propagate to the ground, causing loud disturbances called sonic booms. In extreme cases they can shatter windows and damage buildings.

In the early 1970s, sonic boom concerns led the United States government to ban supersonic passenger flight over land in the US. This hurt the Concorde’s potential market, hence its only two regular routes were trans-Atlantic flights principally over the water.

The Concorde was also a very loud plane at take off, since it needed a lot of thrust to leave the ground.

Video footage of the final Concorde takeoff from New York’s JFK airport.

The future of supersonic travel

A future for supersonic travel relies on solving some or all of the issues Concorde faced.

NASA and Lockheed Martin’s Quesst project aims to show sonic boom can be dissipated to manageable levels. They plan to fly their X-59 supersonic aircraft over US cities and gauge responses from citizens.

Quesst aims to use the geometry of the X-59, with a long elongated nose, to dissipate sonic booms to a weak “thump”, hopefully allowing supersonic airliners to travel over land in the future.

NASA’s X-59 quiet supersonic research aircraft.
NASA/Steve Freeman

Spike Aerospace’s Spike S-512 Diplomat concept also aims to be a “quiet” supersonic aircraft with a less disruptive sonic boom.

Can Boom surpass Concorde?

Boom Supersonic don’t plan to fly supersonically over land. Their plan is to fly over land at Mach 0.94, which they claim will allow 20% faster overland travel than standard passenger airliners, even subsonically.

They also claim the design of their engines will ensure Overture is no louder than modern subsonic airliners when it takes off.

Rendering of Boom Supersonic’s Overture supersonic airliner on the runway.
Boom Supersonic

In terms of gas guzzling, they plan to use up to 100% sustainable aviation fuel to reduce emissions and their carbon footprint.

Concorde was made of aluminium using design tools available in the 1960s. Modern design methods and modern aerospace materials such as titanium and carbon fibre should also allow Overture and similar craft to weigh much less than Concorde, improving efficiency.

While Boom are currently receiving a lot of interest, with orders from many airlines, Concorde did have similar commitment before it become available. Most of it didn’t eventuate.

Additionally, Concorde was the product of an analogue era when the idea of flying to London or New York for the day for an important business meeting seemed like a necessary thing. In a world of remote work and video meetings, is there still a need for a supersonic airliner in the 2020s?

For now, supersonic airliners like Overture are likely to remain in the realm of the rich and famous, like Concorde did. But with modern technological advances, it will be interesting to see whether supersonic passenger travel once again becomes reality – or even goes mainstream. Only time will tell. Läs mer…

From the moment you open your social media feed, you’re stepping into a digital battleground where not all political messages are what they seem.

The upcoming federal election will see an influx of deepfakes, doctored images, and tailored narratives that blur the line between fact and fiction.

Last week, the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) relaunched its Stop and Consider campaign. The campaign urges voters to pause and reflect, particularly regarding information about how to vote. But its message applies to all forms of misinformation.

‘Stop and Consider’ factsheet.
Australian Electoral Commission

AEC Commissioner Jeff Pope warns:

A federal election must be held in the next few months, so now is the perfect time to encourage all Australians to have a healthy degree of scepticism when it comes to what they see, hear or read.

The simple directives outlined in this campaign are designed to slow the spread of misleading information in a digital age where algorithms boost engagement at speed.

So how effective is it likely to be in helping voters sift the real from the fake? While the campaign benefits from the AEC’s credibility and its accessible message, it also faces significant hurdles.

Digital deception in action

In 2024, AI made a notable impact on international political campaigns.

In the US, the Federal Communications Commission fined a political consultant $6 million for orchestrating fake robocalls that featured an AI-generated deepfake of President Joe Biden’s voice.

During India’s 2024 election, Meta (which owns Facebook) approved AI-manipulated ads spreading disinformation and hate. This exacerbated divisive narratives and failing to regulate harmful content.

Meanwhile, the Australian Labor Party deployed an AI-generated video of opposition leader Peter Dutton as part of its online efforts.

Additionally, the Liberal Party has again engaged duo Topham Guerin, who are known for their use of AI and controversial political tactics.

Political leaders are increasingly turning to platforms like TikTok to attract votes. But one of the problems with TikTok for users is that it encourages endless scrolling and can cause users to miss subtle inaccuracies.

Adding to these concerns is a recent scam in which doctored images and fabricated celebrity headlines were circulated. It created the illusion of legitimacy and defrauded many Australians of their money.

These incidents are a stark reminder of how quickly digital manipulation can mislead, whether in commercial scams or political messaging.

Sophie Monk was one of the celebrities who featured in a recent online scam.
Daily Mail

But are we taking it seriously?

South Korea has taken a decisive stance against AI-generated deepfakes in political campaigns by banning them outright. Penalties include up to seven years in prison or fines of 50 million won (A$55,400). This measure forms part of a broader legal framework designed to enforce transparency, accountability, and ethical AI use.

In Australia, teal independents are calling for stricter truth in political advertising laws. The proposed laws aim to impose civil penalties for misleading political ads, including disinformation and hate speech.

However, combating misinformation created by anonymous or unknown parties, such as AI-generated deepfakes, remains a challenge that may require further regulatory measures and technological solutions.

All of this is unfolding at a time when the approach to fact-checking is itself in flux. In January, Meta made headlines by scrapping its third-party fact-checking program in the US. This was done in favour of a “community notes” system. The change was championed by CEO Mark Zuckerberg as a way to reduce censorship and protect free expression.

However, critics warn that without independent oversight, misinformation could spread more easily, potentially leading to a surge in hate speech and harmful rhetoric. These shifts in digital policy only add to the challenge of ensuring that voters receive reliable information.

So, will the AEC’s campaign have any effect?

Amid these challenges, the “Stop and Consider” campaign arrives at a critical moment. Yet despite scholars’ repeated calls to embed digital literacy in school curriculums and community programs, these recommendations often go unheard.

The campaign is a positive step, offering guidance in an era of rapid digital manipulation. The simple message – to pause and verify political content — can help foster a more discerning electorate.

However, given the volume of misinformation and sophisticated targeting techniques, the campaign alone is unlikely to be a silver bullet. Political campaigns are growing ever more sophisticated. With the introduction of anonymous deepfakes, voters, educators, regulators, and platforms must work together to ensure the truth isn’t lost in digital noise.

A robust foundation in digital literacy is vital. Not only for this campaign to work but to help society distinguish credible sources from deceptive content. We must empower future voters to navigate the complexities of our digital world and engage more fully in democracy.

Globally, diverse strategies provide valuable insights.

While Australia’s “Stop and Consider” campaign takes a reflective approach, Sweden’s “Bli inte lurad” initiative is refreshingly direct. It warns citizens: “Don’t be fooled.”

By delivering clear, actionable tips to spot scams and misleading content, the Swedish model leverages its strong tradition of public education and consumer protection.

This no-nonsense strategy reinforces digital literacy efforts. It also highlights that safeguarding the public from digital manipulation requires both proactive education and robust regulatory measures.

It may be time for Australian regulators to act decisively to protect the integrity of democracy. Läs mer…

What happens to our super when we die? Most Australians have superannuation accounts but about one in five of us die before we can retire and actually enjoy that money.

If we do die early our money is paid out as super “death benefits”. They can be substantial. Even people who die young can have $200,000–$300,000 of death benefits through super life insurance.

Death benefits have recently been in the news for all the wrong reasons. Last week the Treasurer Jim Chalmers expressed concern about delays paying out death benefits.

The Law Council is concerned people do not have enough control over how death benefits are distributed. Others are devastated about death benefits being paid to alleged violent partners.

How can you decide who gets your unspent super?

Our first thought might be writing it in our will. However, super is not covered by our will as it does not become part of our deceased estate.

Instead, death benefits are distributed by the trustee of your superannuation fund. Under the law, there are two main mechanisms controlling distribution: binding nominations and the trustee’s discretion.

Wills don’t cover super so it is important to lock in a beneficiary using a binding nomination.
Brian A Jackson/Shutterstock

Every super member has the option to create a binding nomination. It’s like a will for your super that the super trustee is obliged to follow. It also needs two witnesses to execute it. However, there are actually more ways for a binding nomination to fail than for a will to fail.

The law only allows you to nominate certain people: your “dependants” or your estate. If you nominate anyone else your entire nomination stops being binding. Plus, unlike wills, there is no way to fix execution errors. Also, many binding nominations expire after three years.

If you don’t have a binding nomination, then the trustee can choose who your death benefit goes to. There are two main mechanisms controlling how the trustee chooses who gets your death benefit.

First, legislation requires the trustee to give the death benefit to your dependants or deceased estate before anyone else. This means that your parents, for example, will only receive something if you have no children, partner or other dependants.

Second, decisions made by trustees can be disputed by complaining to the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA). The authority has a rigid approach to who should get death benefits and trustees usually follow this course of action.

Research I’ve done with Xia Li of La Trobe University reveals what AFCA does in practice.

Most crucially, people’s wishes expressed in non-binding nominations were essentially ignored. Our research found there was no statistically significant association between being nominated in a non-binding nomination and receiving any of the death benefit. This was true even for recent nominations.

Other factors the complaints authority ignores are family violence and financial need. In one case, five daughters provided evidence, including a police report, that their deceased mother was a victim of violence perpetrated by her new partner. In keeping with the Federal Court, AFCA gave the alleged perpetrator everything because he alone would have benefited from the deceased’s finances if she had lived.

In another case, the deceased’s adult son received nothing despite living with disability and “doing it tough”. He had refused financial help so was not financially dependent. AFCA gave everything to the partner.

AFCA ignores these factors because of one key issue. It places “great weight” on whether beneficiaries are financially dependent on the deceased.

This means when choosing between a financial dependent – such as a new partner who shares home expenses with the deceased, and non-financial dependants, such as most adult children – AFCA will almost always give everything to the spouse.

A new spouse will often receive their partner’s death benefits ahead of the deceased’s non-dependent children.
Ground Picture/Shutterstock

Relying on financial dependence can be arbitrary. Unlike in family law, a de facto partner does not need to be living with you for two years before becoming entitled. For example, in one case AFCA gave a partner of possibly only seven months (and 41 years younger than the deceased) everything and the deceased’s three children aged 27–33 nothing.

Also, AFCA treats any regular payment that supports daily living as financial dependence. For example, a son paying A$100 a week board to parents means both parents are financially dependent on the son. In another case, payments from the deceased to his brother of $5,000, $7,000 and $5,000 made over a year was not financial dependence because they were irregular.

The whole process is slow. The average time it takes to resolve a death benefit case that goes to AFCA is nearly three years and the longest case I’ve seen took over six.

The only thing that you can do that will make a difference is execute a binding nomination; non-binding nominations are worthless.

But take care to execute your binding nomination correctly (get legal advice) and leave reminders for yourself to review it every three years. Läs mer…

Genetic modification is back on the political agenda in New Zealand. The issue may not be as hotly contentious as it once was, but big questions remain about the way forward.

Last year, the National-led coalition government signalled its intent to reform genetic modification laws to provide more “enabling” and “modern” regulation. The subsequent gene technology bill was introduced in December and is currently before select committee.

The bill comes on the back of growing calls for New Zealand’s regulatory frameworks to become less restrictive.

One of the arguments often made is that the current system, in place since the 1990s, is holding back gene technology research by restricting it largely to laboratory-based experiments. By this account, New Zealand is falling behind in knowledge and expertise, while missing out on the benefits of these technologies.

Those benefits are said to span a wide range of areas, including agriculture, health, conservation and climate change.

There are some applications of genetic modification that have potential long-term public benefit and few or no alternatives. These includes the control of invasive wasps or the production of insulin. But plenty of challenges remain for many emerging forms of gene technology, not least the technical complexities.

There are also difficult questions that must be asked. Who benefits and who carries the risks of harm? What might be other hard-to-anticipate implications, spanning health, social, cultural, ethical, environmental, economic and trade concerns?

In conservation, for instance, questions need to be asked about how interventions might spread or interact with ecosystems that are already under strain or beyond our shores.

Genetic modification is a controversial political topic for good reason. As with many other technologies, the devil is in the detail. We should not fall for overly simple narratives that it is all about benefits, with little to no risk. Context matters, as does robust and responsible governance.

The production of insulin is among the gene technology applications with potential long-term public health benefits.
Getty Images

A not-so-independent regulator

It is important to take a close look at how decisions about genetic modification might be made under the proposed bill.

The suggested model is loosely based on Australia’s approach of a single gene technology regulator, which has been in place for two decades and is widely considered to be successful.

But there are crucial – and troubling – differences between the Australian model and what is proposed for New Zealand.

In Australia, the regulator is fully independent. The law is clear: the regulator “is not subject to direction from anyone” in making decisions about genetic modification.

The regulator has a charter which frames decisions, an office and biosafety committees that support their work, and they report to parliament as a whole (not just the government of the day).

In contrast, the proposed New Zealand bill claims the regulator is independent, but also says they are “subject to general policy directions given by the minister”.

It is worth looking deeper into what this means. The bill’s coversheet explains:

Government needs a mechanism to intervene if the regulator acts contrary to its policy objectives.

These objectives would be provided through general policy directions and would “ensure the regulator acts consistently with reform objectives”, including by changing risk tolerance.

Although a minister cannot intervene in decisions about specific applications, they would have the ability to change the parameters of the regulator’s decisions, with no apparent requirements for wider consultation.

This is not true independence by any stretch of the imagination – and a long way from the Australian approach.

A note of caution

If a minister is able to change the parameters of a regulator’s decisions at will, it is important to consider what doors might be opened that we may wish, in retrospect, remained shut.

For example, the recently released first report of the Science System Advisory Group calls for “attracting multinational corporations to undertake research and development in New Zealand”. The report alludes to genetic modification research as a key area to expand.

Put this together with the decision-making model proposed under the bill. It is not a stretch to see how a regulator, who was subject to the general policy direction of a minister, could be provided with a scope that facilitated multinational genetic modification research in New Zealand.

There is ample reason to be cautious of opening New Zealand to this. Numerous international scholars have highlighted that genetic modification research is “firmly dominated” by elite US-based or European science teams.

It is also increasingly funded by private philanthropists, corporations and the military, who often implement their experiments in distant countries or islands with relatively minimal regulation.

This practice has been given a specific term: “ethics dumping”.

Science might progress, but local communities are left with the unpredictable and unintended consequences of these experiments, usually without meaningful prior consultation.

It is therefore important that any changes to New Zealand’s genetic modification regulation ensure truly independent decision-making. There can be benefits of these technologies, but a system that can be changed at short notice to suit the government of the day could set the scene for more harm than good.

The devil really is in the detail. To have responsible governance, a few changes in the new law will make a significant difference. Läs mer…

Around 350 million people globally use dating apps, and they amass an estimated annual revenue of more than US$5 billion. In Australia, 49% of adults report using at least one online dating app or website, with a further 27% having done so in the past.

But while dating apps have helped many people find romantic partners, they’re not all good news.

In a recent review, my colleagues and I found using dating apps may be linked to poorer body image, mental health and wellbeing.

We collated the evidence

Our study was a systematic review, where we collated the results of 45 studies that looked at dating app use and how this was linked to body image, mental health or wellbeing.

Body image refers to the perceptions or feelings a person has towards their own appearance, often relating to body size, shape and attractiveness.

Most of the studies we included were published in 2020 onwards. The majority were carried out in Western countries (such as the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia). Just under half of studies included participants of all genders. Interestingly, 44% of studies observed men exclusively, while only 7% included just women.

Of the 45 studies, 29 looked at the impact of dating apps on mental health and wellbeing and 22 considered the impact on body image (some looked at both). Some studies examined differences between users and non-users of dating apps, while others looked at whether intensity of dating app use (how often they’re used, how many apps are used, and so on) makes a difference.

More than 85% of studies (19 of 22) looking at body image found significant negative relationships between dating app use and body image. Just under half of studies (14 of 29) observed negative relationships with mental health and wellbeing.

The studies noted links with problems including body dissatisfaction, disordered eating, depression, anxiety and low self-esteem.

Dating apps are becoming increasingly common. But could their use harm mental health?
Rachata Teyparsit/Shutterstock

It’s important to note our research has a few limitations. For example, almost all studies included in the review were cross-sectional – studies that analyse data at a particular point in time.

This means researchers were unable to discern whether dating apps actually cause body image, mental health and wellbeing concerns over time, or whether there is simply a correlation. They can’t rule out that in some cases the relationship may go the other way, meaning poor mental health or body image increases a person’s likelihood of using dating apps.

Also, the studies included in the review were mostly conducted in Western regions with predominantly white participants, limiting our ability to generalise the findings to all populations.

Why are dating apps linked to poor body image and mental health?

Despite these limitations, there are plausible reasons to expect there may be a link between dating apps and poorer body image, mental health and wellbeing.

Like a lot of social media, dating apps are overwhelmingly image-centric, meaning they have an emphasis on pictures or videos. Dating app users are initially exposed primarily to photos when browsing, with information such as interests or hobbies accessible only after manually clicking through to profiles.

Because of this, users often evaluate profiles based primarily on the photos attached. Even when a user does click through to another person’s profile, whether or not they “like” someone may still often be determined primarily on the basis of physical appearance.

This emphasis on visual content on dating apps can, in turn, cause users to view their appearance as more important than who they are as a person. This process is called self-objectification.

People who experience self-objectification are more likely to scrutinise their appearance, potentially leading to body dissatisfaction, body shame, or other issues pertaining to body image.

Dating apps are overwhelmingly image-centric.
Studio Romantic/Shutterstock

There could be several reasons why mental health and wellbeing may be impacted by dating apps, many of which may centre around rejection.

Rejection can come in many forms on dating apps. It can be implied, such as having a lack of matches, or it can be explicit, such as discrimination or abuse. Users who encounter rejection frequently on dating apps may be more likely to experience poorer self-esteem, depressive symptoms or anxiety.

And if rejection is perceived to be based on appearance, this could lead again to body image concerns.

What’s more, the convenience and game-like nature of dating apps may lead people who could benefit from taking a break to keep swiping.

What can app developers do? What can you do?

Developers of dating apps should be seeking ways to protect users against these possible harms. This could, for example, include reducing the prominence of photos on user profiles, and increasing the moderation of discrimination and abuse on their platforms.

The Australian government has developed a code of conduct – to be enforced from April 1 this year – to help moderate and reduce discrimination and abuse on online dating platforms. This is a positive step.

Despite the possible negatives, research has also found dating apps can help build confidence and help users meet new people.

If you use dating apps, my colleagues and I recommend choosing profile images you feel display your personality or interests, or photos with friends, rather than semi-clothed images and selfies. Engage in positive conversations with other users, and block and report anyone who is abusive or discriminatory.

It’s also sensible to take breaks from the apps, particularly if you’re feeling overwhelmed or dejected.

If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 14. The Butterfly Foundation provides support for eating disorders and body image issues, and can be reached on 1800 334 673. Läs mer…

What could you buy for 90 cents? Not much – perhaps a banana.

Unfortunately, that’s how much the Australian government has invested per person annually on walking, wheeling and cycling over the past 20 years.

How would Australians’ lives change if that figure rose?

Read more:
What makes a city great for running and how can we promote ’runnability’ in urban design?

The state of play here and overseas

From 2008-2028, the federal government spent $384 million on the following active transport investments:

All up, about $714 per person is spent annually on roads; 90 cents out of this $714 is just pocket change.

Even if you don’t want to walk, wheel or ride, you should care because less driving helps everyone, including other drivers, who benefit from reduced traffic.

As a result of this over-investment in car road-building, Australia has the smallest number of walking trips of 15 comparable countries across Western Europe and North America.

Cycling rates are equally dismal.

Globally, the United Nations recommends nations spend 20% of their transport budgets on walking and cycling infrastructure.

Countries like France, Scotland, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden and the largest cities in China invest between 10% and 20%.

These places were not always known for walking and cycling – it took sustained redirecting of investment from roads to walking and cycling.

Meanwhile, many Australians are dependent on cars because they have no other choice in terms of transport options.

Why spend more on walking and cycling?

Road use is inherently dangerous – in Australia last year, more than 1,300 people died on our roads, which is more than 25 people a week.

Owning a car can also be expensive, which is especially concerning for those struggling with the cost-of-living.

The typical Australian household spends 17% of its income on transport – with car ownership making up 92.5% of that figure, compared to 7.5% on public transport.

Many Australians feel forced to own a car to get around, so investing in paths and public transport provides people the freedom to get around how they choose.

Congestion is getting worse in most major cities and we can’t build our way out of it with more or wider roads.

About two-thirds of car journeys in our cities could be walked, wheeled or cycled in 15 minutes or less, but these short car trips clog up our roads with traffic.

A major source of all emissions in Australia are from driving.

If more people felt safe to walk, cycle or take public transport, it would reduce this major emissions source.

There is a strong rationale and economic argument, too. The NSW government has estimated every kilometre walked benefits the national economy by $6.30, while every kilometre cycled benefits the economy by $4.10.

This means that by simply walking 500 metres to the local shops and back, you’re saving the economy about $6, while riding five kilometres to work and back saves a whopping $41 for the economy.

But where could we get this funding from?

Redirecting funding from the current road budget makes the most sense, because getting more people walking, wheeling and cycling eases pressure on the transport system (think of school holiday traffic).

This is a popular proposition. One study found two-thirds of Australians supported the redirection of funding from roads to walking and cycling infrastructure. Another found many Australians support building more walking and cycling paths where they live.

This is not a partisan issue: all Australians in all communities would benefit, including drivers who would face less traffic and enjoy more parking availability.

Unfortunately, false solutions to our unwalkable and un-cycleable communities continue to derail our focus on fixing the root cause of our problems. For example, telling people to ride to work, while not providing them a safe place to do so, doesn’t make sense.

What could $15 per person get us?

Investing $15 per Australian per year would create a better built environment to walk, wheel or ride and deliver significant economic, social and environmental benefits.

If this was matched with 50:50 funding from state and territory governments (which often happens with transport projects) over a ten-year period, this investment would deliver the four national projects already shortlisted on Infrastructure Australia’s infrastructure priority list for our largest capital cities: Sydney, Melbourne, Perth, Brisbane.

It could also fund up to 15 regional cities to build comprehensive networks. Wagga Wagga for example, is about to finish building a 56 kilometre network of walking and cycling paths. As a result, those using the network are 3.7 times more likely to meet physical activity guidelines than those who don’t.

Such an investment could also fund supporting initiatives, such as electric bike subsidies which have proven extremely popular in both Queensland and Tasmania.

What could $10 or $5 per person get us?

The Australian government could invest less than $15 per person – at $5 or $10 per year, the key projects outlined in Infrastructure Australia’s infrastructure priority list could still be targeted, but those would just take proportionally longer because there is less money.

Or, instead of investing in the four capital cities on the infrastructure priority list, it could invest in two.

A different approach could be to spend $5 or $10 to fund infrastructure for regional towns, but this wouldn’t help the problems in our capital cities.

When it comes to transport, the saying goes “we get what we build” – so if we build more roads, we get more people driving. If we build paths, we get more people walking and cycling short journeys and our roads are less congested.

We need bold solutions, and $15 should be seen not as an extravagance.

Acknowledgement: We would like to thank Sara Stace, President of Better Streets Australia, for her expertise in discussions regarding this article. Läs mer…

As promised, United States President Donald Trump has imposed punishing tariffs on all exports from Canada and Mexico, leading to retaliatory tariffs from Canada.

Canada’s closest ally has torn up the Canada-U.S.-Mexico trade deal negotiated only seven years ago. The rationale behind what the Wall Street Journal editorial board has called “the dumbest trade war in history” isn’t even clear.

The pessimistic view is that if Canada doesn’t give Trump everything he wants, he will bulldoze the country with more tariffs, sanctions on banks, enhanced border inspections and even a travel ban — everything he recently threatened to do to Colombia.

Canada’s political class is scrambling because the U.S. has long been a cultural sibling and an economic partner. But now it is toxic, threatening and untrustworthy. Will Canada sign another trade deal with Trump in office? The chances recede the longer the tariffs remain in place.

U.S. President Donald Trump signs executive orders in the Oval Office at the White House on Jan. 30, 2025, in Washington, D.C.
AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

Iron-fisted

It’s never been more clear that Trump is obsessive, seldom a bluffer and always iron-fisted. He seems to have planned and executed this tariff bomb to cause maximum pain and chaos. Now he says the European Union is next on his list.

Trump is counting on his new majorities in U.S. Congress to ram through his radical right populist agenda, forcing other countries to play a role in his melodrama.

In response to Trump’s charge that the U.S. subsidizes Canadian trade, former Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper pointed out that half of America’s imported oil comes from Canada, and its price is significantly discounted due to a lack of pipeline capacity. “It’s actually Canada that subsidizes the United States in this regard,” Harper said.

Nevertheless, Trump’s preferred foreign policy tactic is to hit first with economic sanctions and negotiate later. With his near total grip on U.S. government, he can now achieve all his aims through tariffs.

Read more:
Canada-U.S. tariff war: How it will impact different products and industries

The imperial presidency

Trump’s vision for his imperial presidency is organized around an old idea: the revenue tariff. Before income taxes, border tariffs were the primary source of income for government. But back then, government did a lot less.

For example, America’s 19th-century navy of wooden sailing ships was purchased with tariffs. But it would be impossible to fund modern-day health care, student loans and $13 billion aircraft carriers with tariff revenues.

A recent study by the Peterson Institute for International Economics shows the math doesn’t add up. Tariffs are levied on imported goods and are worth about US$3 trillion. American income tax is levied on incomes and are worth more than US$20 trillion. Government would have to be much smaller, and tariffs would have to be so high they would choke American trade, for tariffs to make economic sense.

President Donald Trump and Amy Coney Barrett stand at the White House after the conservative justice was confirmed to the Supreme Court in October 2020.
(AP Photo/Patrick Semansky)

And yet Trump has a broad mandate. In the summer of 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. United States that presidents require a broadly defined “presumptive immunity from prosecution for … official acts.”

This decision has given Trump the legal clout to force the entire federal government to answer to the president himself.

Read more:
US Supreme Court immunity ruling ideal for a president who doesn’t care about democracy

War against democracy

Trump is using his vast new mandate to wage multiple wars simultaneously. These wars against the guardrails of liberal democracy require the punishment of his enemies inside his own party.

Read more:
Canada should be preparing for the end of American democracy

Republicans who have voted against Trump legislation during his first term faced high-profile challenges in the primaries as he funded their opponents. Today, the war is waged against those who are insufficiently loyal, including the highest ranks of the Coast Guard and the FBI.

The war against the administrative state involves the mass firing of independent inspectors, federal lawyers and thousands of civil servants to be replaced by foot soldiers personally loyal to the leader.

The Trump administration has sent out “deferred resignation” notices that invite the entire civil service to resign. This is the tactic Trump’s key adviser, Elon Musk, implemented at X, and it suggests a wave of firings will soon begin.

President-elect Donald Trump listens to Elon Musk as he arrives to watch SpaceX’s mega rocket Starship lift off for a test flight from Starbase in Boca Chica, Texas, in November 2024.
(Brandon Bell/Pool via AP)

Nonsensical trade war

The trade war against Canada and Mexico is peculiar because neither country has expressed any willingness to abolish the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, which is among the achievements of Trump’s first administration.

Nevertheless, the paranoid Trump seems to be convinced that he got a raw deal in 2018, and so he wants to scrap the whole treaty and negotiate something tougher that brings more jobs home.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau gives a thumbs up as he arrives on Parliament Hill the morning after an agreement was reached on a new trade deal with Mexico and the U.S.
THE CANADIAN PRESS/Justin Tang

In 2024, the cars that were ranked most “American” in terms of their content and final assembly were made by Tesla, Honda and Volkswagen. By comparison, the best-selling the Dodge Ram 1500 pickup truck ranked No. 43 on the list. What Trump considers American and non-American isn’t clear, even to voters.

A new Bank of Canada forecast predicts that American tariffs may reduce Canadian GDP by six per cent. The federal government is planning an enormous bailout package to compensate for widespread job losses like the one offered to businesses and individuals during the pandemic.

Unsurprisingly, Trump divides Canada’s leadership. Alberta and Saskatchewan have publicly criticized the Team Canada approach. Alberta Premier Danielle Smith refused to sign the joint federal/provincial statement and played to her secessionist base.

Read more:
Why Alberta’s Danielle Smith is rejecting the Team Canada approach to Trump’s tariff threats

Even so, former Alberta premier Jason Kenney recognizes the peril, arguing that Alberta needs to “be prepared to retaliate … we can’t be wusses about this; we have to have a spine.”

What’s next?

Canada is an export-led economy based on natural resources. Its strength lies not in refusing to buy California wine or Florida orange juice. Its main sources of leverage are oil and gas, potash and uranium, rare earth minerals, timber products and hydroelectric power. But of all these, oil, uranium, and hydro-electric power are Canada’s biggest guns.

It’s not yet clear how effective the Canadian government’s strategy will be. Previous rounds of retaliation after the steel and aluminum tariffs in Trump’s first term did not drive him to the negotiating table. It’s also unclear what the CEOs of Canada’s branch-plant multinational corporations will do when their loyalties are divided between Trump and Canada.

Furthermore, it’s anyone’s guess how much the dissent of western Canadian premiers has hurt Canada’s case with Trump. Certainly, his preferred tactic is to divide and conquer.

Finally, it’s unclear if Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s “Captain Canada” approach will earn the respect or disdain of Republicans — although, ultimately, it doesn’t matter what the rest of the American political class thinks because Trump and his inner circle are calling all the shots.

Ontario Premier Doug Ford, wearing a ‘Canada Is Not For Sale’ hat, speaks as he arrives for a first ministers meeting in Ottawa on Jan. 15, 2025.
THE CANADIAN PRESS/Justin Tang

In practical terms, there is little Canada can do to address the false accusations that it’s complicit in the illicit drug trade and in migrants crossing the border into the U.S. Facts don’t matter to Trump. He will eventually come up with a demand, and if Canada doesn’t give in, he will ramp up the economic pain.

Welcome to the post-liberal world order. Läs mer…

The 2024 US presidential election saw a historic shift to the right, driven by the largest swing of young male voters in two decades. Analysts attribute this partly to podcasters like Joe Rogan, whose unfiltered, conversational content bypassed traditional media to mobilise this demographic.

Our own research shows that Donald Trump’s podcast strategy during the election campaign boosted his support by 1% to 2.6%, with more than half of this linked to Rogan’s platform. In contrast, Kamala Harris’s reliance on traditional, curated media lacked the authenticity that resonated with Trump’s base.

This trend has clear parallels in Australia, where media strategy has long mirrored the US. In 1949, Robert Menzies used radio to reassure the public, much like Franklin D. Roosevelt’s “fireside chats”. In the 1980s, television brought Bob Hawke into voters’ homes, showcasing charisma akin that of John F. Kennedy in his earlier televised debates. Kevin Rudd’s 2007 “Kevin 07” campaign effectively mirrored Barack Obama’s use of social media to engage younger voters. Similarly, Scott Morrison’s 2019 campaign emulated Trump-style microtargeting on Facebook to connect with specific demographics.

Today, podcasts have become the latest battleground for political influence. Their conversational, long-form format enables politicians to address complex issues in a direct, personal manner. This medium resonates particularly with younger voters, who are increasingly turning away from traditional media.

The 2025 federal election will likely see a turning point in the influence of podcasts on election campaigns, and even the outcome.

The Australian podcasting landscape

Podcast consumption in Australia continues to rise, with listenership increasing by 8.7% in early 2024. This comes after reaching a record 43% in 2023, up from 17% in 2017.

Dubbed “the world’s most avid podcast listeners”, Australian men aged 18–34 dominate the audience, drawn to popular news and politics podcasts such as ABC News Top Stories and The Party Room, as well as global hits like The Joe Rogan Experience.

Podcasts appeal through their intimacy and authenticity, fostering a “close-knit friend group” atmosphere. Younger voters increasingly use podcasts to explore issues such as housing affordability and climate change.

Rogan’s podcast exemplifies this appeal, particularly among young Australian men. With 80% of his audience male, and half aged 18–34, Rogan’s unapologetic masculinity and focus on topics such as combat sports, hunting and societal controversies position him as a counterbalance to identity politics. His “living room” style, seen during Trump’s three-hour appearance, makes polarising or extremist ideas more palatable. This reflects a broader cultural shift among young men toward what they see as “traditional values”.

While podcasts often feature diverse viewpoints, their unregulated nature can expose listeners to harmful ideologies, fostering echo chambers or radicalisation. Misinformation spreads more easily in these spaces, as evidenced by the US, where fragmented media contributed to the rise of Trumpism. Although Australia’s stricter campaign finance laws and media regulations reduce such risks, they cannot eliminate them entirely.

As the 2025 election nears, understanding how podcasts shape voter behaviour is critical for balanced political discourse and social cohesion.

Australia’s political landscape

Recent polls show the Liberal-National Coalition leading Labor 53.1% to 46.9% in two-party preferred voting, with 39% of voters preferring Peter Dutton as prime minister compared with Anthony Albanese’s 34%. While the Coalition uses Trump-style strategies, Albanese appears to have a problem with male voters.

Dutton emulates Trump in using podcasts to connect directly with young male voters and amplify culture war themes, anti-woke sentiment, and populist rhetoric.

His Elon Musk-inspired push for a “government efficiency” department mirrors Trump’s populist promises of cutting “wasteful spending”.

The Coalition has tapped into a broader cultural shift among young men. Many of these men have gravitated toward influencers like Andrew Tate – alleged rapist and human trafficker with ambitions to become UK prime minister – whose divisive rhetoric reinforces regressive ideals.

Surveys reveal 28% of Australian teenage boys admire Tate, while 36% find him relatable. Moreover, half of surveyed schools link his influence to negative behavioural changes.

These strategies seem to work, with polls showing increased male voter support for the Coalition (52.7% to Labor’s 47.3%).

Australia’s compulsory voting and multi-party preferential system encourage broad-based appeals. But they also risk amplifying polarisation.

Australia’s concentrated media ownership, dominated by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp, further shapes public discourse by amplifying conservative perspectives.

Although younger Australians – especially women – remain a strong progressive base for Labor, the rise of right-wing podcasts and their impact on young male voters poses a significant challenge. The Coalition’s ability to connect with this demographic via podcasts, leveraging dissatisfaction and cultural shifts, could shape the election’s outcome.

Opportunity and risk

Podcasts present both opportunities and risks for Australian politics. They offer a powerful platform for politicians to engage younger voters on crucial issues, fostering deeper connections. However, their unregulated nature enables the spread of misinformation and the normalisation of polarising ideas.

To address this, voters should critically evaluate podcast content, fact-check claims using resources such as RMIT ABC Fact Check and AAP FactCheck, and seek diverse perspectives. Politicians, meanwhile, must use podcasts strategically, balancing authenticity with accountability.

Progressive ideas could better resonate with young male audiences by reframing topics such as climate action, housing affordability and workplace equity as opportunities for leadership, empowerment and responsibility. Partnering with relatable influencers and using accessible, conversational podcast formats can help progressives connect with this demographic. Läs mer…

Investment in public housing is long overdue. But the current proposal to demolish all 44 of Melbourne’s social housing towers, relocate more than 10,000 residents and redevelop the sites is deeply flawed.

This blanket approach risks repeating the traumatic dislocation of vulnerable communities that happened when the towers were built more than 50 years ago. It also involves wasting money, energy and construction materials.

The state government says the old high-rises are being redeveloped to meet modern standards and house more people. But the decision to demolish and rebuild, rather than upgrade, has been challenged repeatedly.

I coauthored one of the most recent reports from concerned independent architects, urban designers and researchers. Together we argue retrofitting and upgrading existing housing stock, when combined with strategic new building, is technically feasible, cheaper and better for people and the planet.

At the same time, a class action lawsuit is awaiting a legal ruling on whether the government should be forced to release documents justifying demolition over retrofitting.

We know retaining and reusing existing structures saves energy and other resources, ultimately reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Across 44 buildings, this could also save around A$1.5 billion in construction costs.

Playing the numbers game

The federal government has set a national target to build 1.2 million homes by 2029. Victoria has a “bold” target to build 800,000 new homes over the next ten years. But how they go about meeting these targets matters too.

Melbourne’s housing commission towers are home to established communities, where connections between people have developed over a long period. This has immense social value.

The 44 towers also represent substantial embodied carbon. This is the carbon dioxide (CO₂) already emitted in extracting, manufacturing, transporting, installing and eventually disposing of existing concrete, bricks and other reusable materials.

Our analysis of one tower at Atherton Gardens estate revealed a potential saving of 16,000 tonnes of CO₂ through retrofitting. Multiplying this by 44 adds up to more than 700,000 tonnes – roughly equivalent to taking 150,000 cars off the road.

Homes were demolished to make way for the high-rise blocks in the late 1950s.
Jack Lockyer O’Brien, University of Melbourne Archives, UMA-ITE-1965000400366., Author provided (no reuse)

Taking tips from overseas

Overseas, similar postwar housing precincts have been updated and redeveloped in a more careful, considered way. Residents have even been able to stay in place while improvements are made. Such approaches incorporate a mix of renovation and retrofitting of existing buildings, combined with new infill and upgrades to public open spaces.

This approach integrates the precincts into the surrounding city and upgrades facilities to contemporary standards – without wholesale disruption and dislocation of the residents and their established communities.

It’s hard to know whether this work was considered during the decision-making process. The Victorian government and its housing agency Homes Victoria have so far refused to release the relevant reports or documents explaining their reasoning.

Such lack of transparency and consultation led to the launch of the class action. Residents at the Flemington and North Melbourne Estates have come together to argue their human rights were not considered when the decision to demolish their homes was made.

Two reports provide independent analysis

Filling the void, professional groups have undertaken two separate independent studies on a pro-bono basis. These reports analyse the different options based on the available information.

I helped compare three scenarios for a 20-storey tower at Atherton Gardens, Fitzroy. The research analysed two retrofit scenarios for the tower and compared these with a hypothetical equivalent new building.

We established the scope of building works required for each scenario. The team then measured capital cost, embodied carbon and carbon during operation for each case.

We found considerable savings can be made in capital costs (25–30%), embodied carbon (34–36%) and construction time (15–20%) through retrofitting, compared with constructing an equivalent new building.

When multiplied over 44 towers, these savings amount to about A$1.5 billion in raw construction value alone. This is without considering the additional costs of relocating existing residents, providing alternative accommodation during construction, or the social and health and wellbeing costs associated with long-term dislocation of communities.

A separate more detailed report on the Flemington Estate was released in October by charitable not-for-profit design and research practice OFFICE. Both reports independently arrived at very similar solutions for ways to address structural, fire and servicing upgrades.

Breaking down the barriers

Several reasons have been circulated as to why these high-rise towers are unsuitable for retrofitting. The two reports go through each in turn.

The towers are constructed from precast concrete slabs and internal walls are load-bearing. This makes refurbishment difficult, because the majority of walls cannot be moved. The buildings were also designed when the requirement to resist earthquakes was minimal.

A range of other technical hurdles, such as improving acoustic, thermal and fire separation and repairing degraded concrete, would also complicate upgrades. But none of these issues is insurmountable.

Both reports include strategies to address these issues, costed into the estimates. For example, the cost of strengthening to meet earthquake codes has been estimated as $1.73 million in Flemington and $3.85 million for Atherton Gardens. That’s around 3.7% of the total $105 million estimated construction cost for a single Atherton Gardens tower.

The housing towers in North Melbourne could be worth saving.
AAP Image/James Ross

Exploring alternatives

The fact a building does not meet current regulatory standards is not in itself a reason for demolition. More than 80% of the city’s buildings would fail to meet these standards, including everything built in the 19th and 20th centuries. Our building codes recognise the value of existing structures and have provisions for renovation scenarios.

Retention and reuse of existing building fabric can achieve results surpassing current legislative standards while minimising waste, retaining the value of existing embodied carbon, and retaining the fabric, character and social memory of the city in the process.

Retrofitting can also avoid the mass displacement of existing residents, who would otherwise need to be accommodated during the construction phase. For instance, construction can allow refurbishment on a floor-by-floor basis, minimising relocation time for residents.

With the right design, skilled consultants, and genuine care for residents, it’s possible to overcome the barriers typically faced when reusing existing building stock.

I am grateful to Simon Robinson of OFFICE for his contributions to this article.

Read more:
Why knock down all public housing towers when retrofit can sometimes be better? Läs mer…

From today, February 3, pregnant women in Australia will be eligible for a free RSV vaccine under the National Immunisation Program.

This vaccine is designed to protect young infants from severe RSV (respiratory syncytial virus). It does so by generating the production of antibodies against RSV in the mother, which then travel across the placenta to the baby.

While the RSV vaccine is a new addition to the National Immunisation Program, it’s one of three vaccines provided free for pregnant women under the program, alongside ones for influenza and whooping cough. Each offers important protection for newborn babies.

The RSV vaccine

RSV is the most common cause of lower respiratory infections (bronchiolitis and pneumonia) in infants. It’s estimated that of every 100 infants born in Australia each year, at least two will be hospitalised with RSV by six months of age.

RSV infection is most common roughly between March and August in the southern hemisphere, but infection can occur year-round, especially in tropical areas.

The vaccine works by conferring passive immunity (from the mother) as opposed to active immunity (the baby’s own immune response). By the time the baby is born, their antibodies are sufficient to protect them during the first months of life when they are most vulnerable to severe RSV disease.

The RSV vaccine registered for use in pregnant women in Australia, Abrysvo, has been used since 2023 in the Americas and Europe. Real-world experience there shows it’s working well.

For example, over the 2024 RSV season in Argentina, it was found to prevent 72.7% of lower respiratory tract infections caused by RSV and requiring hospitalisation in infants aged 0–3 months, and 68% among those aged 0–6 months. This research noted three deaths from RSV, all in infants whose mothers did not receive the RSV vaccine during pregnancy.

This was similar to protection seen in a large multinational clinical trial that compared babies born to mothers who received this RSV vaccine with babies born to mothers who received a placebo. This study found the vaccine prevented 82.4% of severe cases of RSV in infants aged under three months, and 70% under six months, and that the vaccine was safe.

Vaccinating mothers during pregnancy protects the newborn baby.
StoryTime Studio/Shutterstock

In addition to the maternal vaccine, nirsevimab, a long-acting monoclonal antibody, provides effective protection against severe RSV disease. It’s delivered to the baby by an intramuscular injection, usually in the thigh.

Nirsevimab is recommended for babies born to women who did not receive an RSV vaccine during pregnancy, or who are born within two weeks of their mother having received the shot (most likely if they’re born prematurely). It may also be recommended for babies who are at higher risk of RSV due to a medical condition, even if their mother was vaccinated.

Nirsevimab is not funded under the National Immunisation Program, but is covered under various state and territory-based programs for infants of mothers who fall into the above categories.

But now we have a safe and effective RSV vaccine for pregnancy, all pregnant women should be encouraged to receive it as the first line of prevention. This will maximise the number of babies protected during their first months of life.

Flu and whooping cough

It’s also important pregnant women continue to receive flu and whooping cough vaccines in 2025. Like the RSV vaccine, these protect infants by passing antibodies from mother to baby.

There has been a large whooping cough outbreak in Australia in recent months, including a death of a two-month-old infant in Queensland in November 2024.

The whooping cough vaccine, given in combination with diphtheria and tetanus, prevents more than 90% of whooping cough cases in babies too young to receive their first whooping cough vaccine dose.

Similarly, influenza can be deadly in young babies, and maternal flu vaccination substantially reduces hospital visits associated with influenza for babies under six months. Flu can also be serious for pregnant women, so the vaccine offers important protection for the mother as well.

COVID vaccines are safe in pregnancy, but unless a woman is otherwise eligible, they’re not routinely recommended. You can discuss this with your health-care provider.

When and where can you get vaccinated?

Pregnant women can receive these vaccines during antenatal visits through their GP or in a specialised antenatal clinic.

The flu vaccine is recommended at any time during pregnancy, the whooping cough vaccine from 20 weeks (ideally before 32 weeks), and the RSV vaccine from 28 weeks (before 36 weeks).

It’s safe to receive multiple vaccinations at the same clinic visit.

The RSV vaccine is now available for pregnant women under the National Immunisation Program.
Olga Rolenko/Shutterstock

We know vaccination rates have declined in a variety of groups since the pandemic, and there’s evidence emerging that suggests this trend has occurred in pregnant women too.

A recent preprint (a study yet to be peer-reviewed) found a decrease of nearly ten percentage points in flu vaccine coverage among pregnant women in New South Wales, from 58.8% in 2020 to 49.1% in 2022. The research showed a smaller drop of 1.4 percentage points for whooping cough, from 79% in 2020 to 77.6% in 2022.

It’s important to work to improve vaccination rates during pregnancy to give babies the best protection in their first months of life.

We know pregnant women would like to receive information about new and routine maternal vaccines early in pregnancy. In particular, many pregnant women want to understand how vaccines are tested for safety, and their effectiveness, which was evident during COVID.

GPs and midwives are trusted sources of information on vaccines in pregnancy. There’s also information available online on Sharing Knowledge About Immunisation, a collaboration led by the National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance. Läs mer…