Category: The Conversation – Global Perspectives

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Ian A. Wright, Associate Professor in Environmental Science, Western Sydney University

There’s little worse as a pool lifeguard than hearing the words “code brown” come through your radio. For swimmers on a hot day, there’s also little worse than being told to immediately get out of the water because there’s poo floating in the pool.

During hot summers, public pools in Australia are often crowded with families and children. The risk of “code brown” incidents at your local pool is probably substantial.

So how is a public pool cleaned after poo or vomit accidentally ends up in the water – and how long before it’s safe to get back in?

The short answer is: it depends. Let’s dive in.

The dangers of poo in the pool

Contaminated swimming pools are hazardous for swimmers. They have been linked to outbreaks of “crypto”, short for cryptosporidiosis. It’s a highly contagious gastric illness and has unpleasant symptoms including diarrhoea, stomach cramps, fever, nausea and vomiting.

New crypto cases are monitored as it’s a notifiable disease in Australia. If multiple cases are traced to a swimming pool, the pool will be closed for extra cleaning and chlorine treatment.

There are other pathogens, such as viruses, that can infect swimmers using pools exposed to poo or vomit incidents. For example, one study in the United States found rapid onset vomiting and diarrhoea (acute gastroenteritis) affect 28% of swimmers who’d used a norovirus-contaminated swimming pool.

Dealing with an ‘aquatic incident’

Responses for a code brown or vomit follow the official health guidelines for public swimming pools under state or territory public health laws.

However, the specific protocol for the staff will also differ depending on the age of the pool, the type of filtration system, chemicals used for disinfecting the water, and … the type of the poo.

Broadly speaking, if a solid stool or vomit is found, the pool is closed and the poo or vomit must be scooped out using a pool scoop or bucket. Then, it should be discarded down the sewer.

When all the particulates have been removed, a pool vacuum is placed in the water for additional cleaning, and the chlorine concentration is raised for an extended period to disinfect the entire pool.

A pool can be reopened once all of the water has been through the pool’s filtration system. This is known as pool “turnover”. How long this takes depends on the age of the pool and its filtration system. Older pools may take eight hours or longer, but newer pools can be as quick as 25 minutes.

Generally, when staff have followed all the proper guidelines, you can assume the water is safe to swim again when the pool is reopened.

Sometimes, you need superchlorination

The protocol changes for loose stool or diarrhoea. The pool is still closed to the public and the particles are scooped out as best as possible.

Then, the chlorine levels are raised and kept at a higher-than-normal level for a bit over a day. This is called shock superchlorination. After this the chlorine levels fall back to safe swimming levels, the other pool chemicals are rebalanced, and the pool reopened.

Chlorine is one of the most common types of disinfectants used in public swimming pools. You might hear lifeguards talk about free chlorine and total chlorine when referring to pool water quality.

Free chlorine is the “active” part of chlorine. Once it makes contact and kills potentially harmful germs (such as bacteria, protozoa or virus), the chlorine is “inactivated” upon reacting with various compounds, and turns into combined chlorine.

In fact, that strong chlorine smell around swimming pools comes from combined chlorine products called chloramines. These are produced when free chlorine reacts with substances such as urine or perspiration in the water.

Lifeguards also monitor pool water quality throughout the day, performing manual checks and keeping an eye on automatic measurements.

On busy days chlorine might be checked every three hours to ensure levels are maintained within specific ranges to maintain optimal pool water quality. This is known as “balancing the water”.

Don’t go to the pool when sick

It’s important to take precautions when visiting a pool to ensure that you and everyone around you stays healthy during and after your visit.

The best way to do this is to not visit the pool if you’re feeling unwell or have had diarrhoea in the past two weeks, or if you have been diagnosed with cryptosporidiosis or infections such as E. coli, shigella or viruses.

Swimming can be fun and exciting for kids who might forget about a bathroom break. Parents should take their babies and toddlers to the toilet every 20–30 minutes to prevent accidents from occurring.

For babies and toddlers, swim nappies are encouraged to prevent accidental code browns. However, the disposable option are usually not effective at containing urine or poo. Reusable swim nappies are a far better option, designed to provide a snug fit.

If you see a poo or vomit at the pool, get out of the water and tell a lifeguard or staff member immediately. Then, follow all directions given by staff members and seek medical attention if you feel unwell in the days following the incident.

Ian A. Wright receives research and consulting funding from industry, local and state government bodies.

Katherine Warwick receives funding from industry, local and state government bodies. Katherine is also a former lifeguard and learn to swim teacher and has personally responded to numerous “code browns” during her time in the industry.

– ref. After ‘code brown’, how long before the pool is safe again? Water quality experts explain – https://theconversation.com/after-code-brown-how-long-before-the-pool-is-safe-again-water-quality-experts-explain-274856

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Nina Srinivasan Rathbun, Professor of International Relations, Munk School of Global Affairs & Public Policy, University of Toronto; USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

The latest rounds of nuclear talks between the U.S. and Iran are going well enough for now, according to the steady drip of public statements from the main parties involved.

“I think they want to make a deal,” said U.S. President Donald Trump on the eve of the latest round of discussions held in Geneva on Feb. 17, 2026. Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, noted progress over the “guiding principles” of the talks.

Such optimism was similarly on display during initial talks in Oman earlier in the month.

But as someone who has researched nonproliferation and U.S. national security for two decades and was involved in State Department nuclear diplomacy, I know we have been here before.

Optimism also existed in spring 2025, during five rounds of indirect talks that preceded the United States bombing of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure as part of a broader Israeli attack. Pointedly, Iran noted in February that a climate of mistrust created by that attack hangs over the efforts for a negotiated deal now.

And underpinning any pessimism over a deal now is the fact that talks are taking place with a backdrop of U.S. military buildup in the Persian Gulf region and counteraction from Iran, including the closure of the Strait of Hormuz for a live-fire drill.

Red lines

But it is more than mistrust that will need to be overcome. The positions of both the U.S. government and Iran have ossified since May 8, 2018 – the date when the first Trump administration withdrew the United States from the Obama-era Iran nuclear deal.

Iran continues to be unwilling to even discuss its ballistic missile program. This is a red line for them.

Yet the United States continues to demand limits to Iran’s ballistic missiles and the ending of Iran’s support of proxy fighters in the region be included in the nuclear talks, in addition to having Iran fully abandon enriching uranium – including at the low civilian-use level agreed on under the 2015 nuclear deal.

The talks are taking place amid a wider trend toward the end of what can be called the “arms control era.” The expiration of New START – which until Feb. 5, 2026, limited both the size and status of U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons and maintained robust verification mechanisms – together with the increasing willingness to engage in military actions to achieve political goals heightens the challenges for diplomacy.

Military brinkmanship

So why the apparent public optimism from the U.S. government?

Trump believes that Iran is in a weaker position than during his first term, following the largely successful Israeli attacks on Iran’s regional proxies as well as on Iran itself. The strategic capabilities of Tehran’s two main sponsored groups, Hamas and Hezbollah, are clearly diminished as a result of Israeli action.

The U.S. may also still feel it has the upper hand following the June 2025 Operation Rising Lion, in which Iran’s nuclear infrastructure was attacked in response to an International Atomic Energy Agency’s report that Iran’s stockpile of near-weapons grade enriched uranium surged by over 50% in the spring.

The reopening of talks now also comes in the immediate aftermath of Iran’s bloody crackdown on anti-government protests, leaving thousands of protesters dead.

The USS Abraham Lincoln carrier group was deployed near Iranian waters in January as a signal to the protesters of U.S support. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said that successful talks must include topics beyond Iran’s nuclear program, including the “treatment of (its) own people.”

Trump continues to consider military options against Iran, warning that “if they don’t make a deal, the consequences are very steep.”

Yet there is a danger that Washington may be overestimating its position.

While the United States maintains that Iranian nuclear sites were “obliterated” in the June attack, satellite imagery indicates that Iran is working to restore its nuclear program. And while Tehran’s proxies in Gaza and Lebanon are severely degraded, Iranian-supported militias in Iraq, including the Kataib Hezbollah, have renewed urgent preparations for war – potentially against the U.S. – and the Houthi rebels have threatened to withdraw from a ceasefire deal with the United States.

Moreover, Iran’s commitment to its ballistic missile program is stronger than ever before, with much of the infrastructure already rebuilt from Operation Rising Lion.

No returning to the 2015 deal

Iran maintains that the talks must be confined only to guarantees about the civilian purpose of its nuclear program, not its missile program, its support of regional proxy groups or its own human rights abuses.

And that is incompatible with the U.S.’s long-held position.

This disagreement ultimately prevented the U.S. and Iran from renewing the now-defunct 2015 political deal during the Biden administration. Signed by China, France, Germany, Russia, the U.K., the United States and Iran, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) halted Iran’s development of nuclear technology and stockpiling of nuclear material in exchange for lifting multiple international economic sanctions placed on Iran. Ballistic missile technology and Iran’s proxy support for regional militias were not included in the original agreement due to Iran’s unwillingness to include those measures.

The parties to the Iran deal ultimately decided that a nuclear deal was better than the alternative of no deal at all.

There was a window for such a deal to be resumed in between the two Trump administrations. And the Biden administration publicly pledged to strengthen and renew the Obama-era nuclear deal in 2021.

But by then, Iran had significantly increased its nuclear technical capability during the four years that has passed since the JCPOA collapsed.

That increased the difficulty: Just to return to the previous deal would have required Iran to give up the new technical capability it had achieved for no new benefits.

The window closed in 2022 after Iran removed all of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s surveillance and monitoring under the deal and started enriching uranium to near weapons levels and stockpiling sufficient amounts for several nuclear weapons.

The IAEA, the U.N’s nuclear watchdog, currently maintains only normal safeguards Iran had agreed to before the JCPOA.

Even with the 2025 U.S. strikes, Iran currently has the ability to produce enough fissile material for a nuclear bomb within weeks to several months. This is up from over a year under the 2015 deal.

US and Iran talks today

Although most analysts doubt that Iran has developed the weaponization knowledge necessary to build a nuclear bomb – estimates vary from several months to about two years due to the lack of access to and evidence on Iran’s weaponization research – Iran’s technical advances reduce the value for the U.S. government of returning to the 2015 deal. Iran’s knowledge cannot be put back into Pandora’s box.

But talks do not necessarily need an end point – in the shape of a deal – for them to have purpose.

With the increased military brinkmanship, talks could help the U.S. and Iran step back from the edge, build trust and perhaps develop better political relations. Both sides would benefit from this stabilization: Iran economically, from being reintegrated into the international system, and the U.S. from a verifiable lengthening of the time it would take Iran to break out.

None of this is guaranteed.

When I worked in multilateral nuclear diplomacy for the U.S. State Department, we saw talks fail in 2009 regarding North Korea’s nuclear weapons program, after six years of on-and-off progress. The consequence of that failure is a more unstable East Asia and renewed interest by South Korea in developing nuclear weapons.

Unfortunately, the same dynamic appears here. The shape of a potential new deal is unclear. As time passes with no deal, both sides harden their negotiating starting points, making a deal less likely.

Military escalations may lead to a new willingness to compromise on the part of Iran or precipitate its decision to build nuclear weapons.

But even should the talks prove a failure, the effort to dampen the confrontational responses and heightening tensions would still be valuable in reducing the possibility of regional conflict.

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

– ref. Iran-US nuclear talks may fail due to both nations’ red lines – but that doesn’t make them futile – https://theconversation.com/iran-us-nuclear-talks-may-fail-due-to-both-nations-red-lines-but-that-doesnt-make-them-futile-275530

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Sebastian Maslow, Associate Professor, International Relations, Contemporary Japanese Politics & Society, University of Tokyo

Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi and her ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) got a historic landslide victory in last week’s parliamentary elections.

This marks the first time since its founding in 1955 that the conservative LDP controls a two-thirds supermajority in the lower house. If necessary, Takaichi’s cabinet could also overrule any opposition in the upper house of the Diet (Japan’s parliament), where her coalition still lacks a majority.

Given this, Takaichi now has a massive mandate to push her agenda. This includes boosting defence spending, strengthening the military and even potentially revising Japan’s pacifist constitution, which constrains the role of the Self-Defence Forces and forbids going to war.

So, does this mean Japan could become a more militarised state under Takaichi? And if so, what are the implications for regional security?

Countering China’s rise

Takaichi has portrayed herself as Japan’s Margaret Thatcher and the standard-bearer of former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s legacy.

Abe, who led the LDP back to power in 2012, had pledged to “restore a strong Japan”. During his eight-year rule, Japan adopted a so-called “proactive pacifism”. Under this new security strategy, Japan began to depart from its
postwar pacifism through a number of ways:

• strengthening the military
• lifting bans on arms exports
• building new security partnerships (including with NATO, the European Union and the Quad)
• consolidating its alliance with the United States.

In 2014, a new interpretation of the constitution also permitted Japan to engage in “collective self defence”, or aid an ally under attack.

Takaichi now sees her job as continuing Abe’s work. And her direction is clear.

Shortly after becoming prime minister last year, Takaichi triggered a spat with Beijing when she suggested Japan would come to Taiwan’s defence if it was attacked by China. Beijing retaliated with economic pressure and coercive rhetoric, but Takaichi refused to back down.

Neither Takaichi nor China’s leader, Xi Jinping, are in a hurry to improve diplomatic relations.

Beijing has urged Chinese tourists not to travel to Japan and warned that Takaichi’s moves threaten regional security and the international order.

Takaichi, meanwhile, is hoping an assertive China will help her overcome domestic opposition to her security agenda. So far, the public supports her government, too. In a poll after the election, 69% approved of her cabinet’s performance.

How Takaichi wants to transform Japan’s military

Takaichi’s government will soon begin work on a revision of its National Security Strategy from 2022. It is likely to adopt her declared “crisis management” approach, combining security and economic objectives with industrial policy.

Despite mounting public debt, Takaichi has already increased defence spending to 2% of Japan’s GDP ahead of schedule, and has pledged to spend more.

Her government is also considering acquiring nuclear submarines and has announced plans to further deregulate arms exports, ultimately allowing the transfer of lethal weapons.

Japan has already permitted the export of Patriot PAC-3 air defence missile systems to the United States to replenish stocks sent to Ukraine and Israel. Japan has also agreed to sell Mogami-class frigates to Australia and has signed deals with Italy and the United Kingdom to co-develop a next-generation fighter jet.

In addition, Japan is participating in a NATO-led initiative to supply Ukraine with military equipment. While Japan’s involvement is limited to non-lethal arms, this could lead to more defence cooperation with NATO overall.

On the domestic intelligence front, Takaichi has pledged to pass a new anti-spy law, establish a National Intelligence Bureau modelled on the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and issue a national intelligence strategy.

These initiatives are intended to bolster the country’s intelligence capabilities, which have often been hindered by bureaucratic infighting. The long-term aim is eventually joining the “Five Eyes” network.

Stronger ties with the Trump administration

Faced with threats from China, North Korea and Russia, Japan has little choice but to maintain its security alliance with the US.

At the top of Takaichi’s agenda, therefore, is managing the US–Japan alliance in the era of the so-called “Donroe doctrine”. This is Trump’s new security strategy that shifts the focus of US security towards the Western hemisphere, potentially distracting from the Indo-Pacific.

Trump endorsed Takaichi during her election campaign. And when she goes to Washington on March 19, she will likely attempt to influence the White House’s China agenda before Trump visits Beijing in April.

In order to offset the potential impact of a trade deal between the US and China, Takaichi could also use her new political capital to accelerate the implementation of Japan’s own US$550 billion (A$777 billion) investment pledge in the US.

Big challenges ahead

Ten years ago, Angela Merkel, then-chancellor of Germany, was hailed as the “new leader of the free world”. Now, Takaichi is being celebrated as the “world’s most powerful woman”.

How she uses her new-found power to manoeuvre in a world of great-power rivalry and uncertain alliances will define her legacy and shape the region for years to come.

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

– ref. Make Japan strong again: Sanae Takaichi’s plan to transform her country’s military – https://theconversation.com/make-japan-strong-again-sanae-takaichis-plan-to-transform-her-countrys-military-275676

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Emily Brayshaw, Honorary Research Fellow, School of Design, University of Technology Sydney

Even before the film’s release, the costumes for Emerald Fennell’s Wuthering Heights caused controversy.

Wuthering Heights was first published in 1847 and the story switches back and forth in time between 1801 and the 1770s. But Cathy’s wedding dress references an entirely different era, inspired by a 1951 Charles James haute couture gown. Cathy also appears to be wrapped in cellophane – a material first invented in 1908 – on her wedding night.

These costumes were designed by Jacqueline Durran, who previously won Oscars and BAFTAs for costume design for Anna Karenina (2012) and Little Women (2019), and a third BAFTA for Vera Drake (2005).

Some costume experts have panned Durran’s costumes as anachronistic and visually incoherent. But Vogue described them as “wild and wonderful”. So who’s right?

Designing for film

Costume design is a collaboration; the designer works closely with the director and other production creatives to make a world and bring a story to life.

Costumes must make narrative sense within the world a director is building and communicate the character’s personality and story in each scene.

Often, costumes can seem so natural to a character and their world that you don’t even notice them, like Kathleen Detoro’s designs on Breaking Bad (2008–13).

Costumes can also be scene-stealers because displays of fashion and dress are part of the plot, like Durran’s costumes for Barbie (2023), or Patricia Field’s costumes for Sex and the City (1998–2004).

In Wuthering Heights, Cathy (Margot Robbie) has 50 different costumes, many featuring vintage Chanel jewellery. Other times, she is in ultra shiny, synthetic, plasticised contemporary fabric – such as a black gown that resembles an oil slick.

Heathcliff (Jacob Elordi) has fewer changes, more in keeping with Georgian dress, with his costuming riffing on the cinematic trope of the bad-boy Byronic hero.

With every character, the costumes have a life of their own.

This is not unusual for cinematic adaptations of classic literature, which have featured glamorous, luxurious costumes to attract audiences since the beginning of film history, like Georges Méliès’s Cinderella (1899) and Cecil B. DeMille’s Male or Female (1919).

Designing Wuthering Heights

Fennell’s world of Wuthering Heights is built on a collection of images and cinematic references that span time and space to show the love story is universal.

Fennell also wanted to “make something really disturbing and sexy and nightmarish” rather than faithfully recreating the book.

To do this, she accumulated a huge number of visual references and collaborated with Durran to see how and where these could fit into the film.

Instead of historically accurate costuming, Durran and Fennell created a world of stylised costumes inspired by 500 years of historical dress, contemporary fashions, images from fairy tales and popular culture, and old Hollywood technicolor films from the 1930s to the 1960s, particularly Gone With the Wind (1939) and The Wizard of Oz (1939).

This is part of a broader costuming trend rejecting complete historical accuracy when re-imagining historical eras on screen, such as the alternative Regency world of Bridgerton (2020–) and Guillermo del Toro’s Frankenstein (2025).

‘A collection of memoranda’

After Cathy dies in the book Heathcliff says, “The entire world is a dreadful collection of memoranda that she did exist, and that I have lost her”.

Motifs of hair, skin, bone and teeth are found throughout the film and speak to the physical, visceral nature of Heathcliff and Cathy’s passion. This echoes historical trends for mourning jewellery that featured hair, bones and teeth of deceased loved ones, and foreshadows the film’s ending.

Cathy’s jewellery is her armour. After she marries Edgar Linton (Shazad Latif), her jewellery signals her newfound wealth and security. The majority of Cathy’s costumes are black, white and red, echoing the interiors of her old and new homes, Wuthering Heights and Thrushcross Grange.

Cathy demands Nelly (Hong Chau) tighten her bridal corset, echoing the scars on Heathcliff’s back from a beating he sustained as a child when defending her. But this tightening also signals she is trapped in a loveless cage.

Edgar, the nouveau-riche textile merchant, wears suits with a period silhouette but made in contemporary, shiny fabrics; his spoilt, unhinged sister Isabella (Alison Oliver) wears tacky, frilly beribboned gowns and accessories; Heathcliff transforms from rough brute in farming clothes to rakish, Regency-style dandy with a gold tooth.

Not all of the costuming choices work. Cathy’s dirndl-style gowns are more Oktoberfest than “moorcore”. Unlike Cathy’s other costumes which aren’t historically accurate, but are still based on a bygone time, I found the dirndl gowns too similar to a style of traditional dress still worn in Bavaria, Austria and Switzerland, taking us away from the historical fantasy world of Wuthering Heights.

Let it sweep you away

While some will criticise the bold costuming choices, the beauty and skill of Durran’s work on Wuthering Heights are undeniable.

We should embrace Durran’s costumes and their blend of romantic, historical silhouettes and imagery with glossy, gauzy fabrics and sexy, contemporary, high fashion looks.

Don’t look for historical accuracy in Fennell’s Wuthering Heights. That will lead to disappointment. Instead, let the sensual, opulent costumes, the brash, bold scenography and the chemistry between Robbie and Elordi sweep you away to a sumptuous, imaginary world.

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

– ref. Are the costumes for Wuthering Heights accurate? No. Are they magnificent? Absolutely yes – https://theconversation.com/are-the-costumes-for-wuthering-heights-accurate-no-are-they-magnificent-absolutely-yes-274971

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Adam Simpson, Senior Lecturer in International Studies in the School of Society and Culture, Adelaide University

Thailand’s prime minister, Anutin Charnvirakul, will almost certainly stay in the job after a surprise result in last week’s elections saw his conservative Bhumjaithai Party win the most seats in the lower house.

The outcome was another significant setback for the progressive People’s Party – and Thailand’s pro-democracy movement more broadly.

While the People’s Party made some missteps in the campaign, the election demonstrates, yet again, the immense hurdles faced by progressive, democratic parties in a country where pro-military and pro-monarchy forces have outsized influence in politics.

The People’s Party finished second after leading in most pre-election polls. It will now be the primary opposition party in the country.

The formerly powerful Pheu Thai party came a distant third, and agreed to join the Bhumjaithai-led ruling coalition.

So, what does the election mean for the direction of a country? And what’s next for the pro-democracy movement that has attempted for years to bring reforms to the country?

Who is Anutin Charnvirakul?

Anutin took over the Bhumjaithai Party from his father, a former acting premier, in 2014. He had already followed his father into the family construction business, one of Thailand’s biggest.

Anutin came to national prominence as the key backer of legalisation that decriminalised cannabis, although he has since distanced himself from the issue in a bid to appeal to more conservative voters.

Anutin rose to the premiership last year after the previous prime minister, Paetongtarn Shinawatra, was removed from office for purportedly being too conciliatory towards Cambodia over an ongoing border dispute.

Anutin was elected prime minister in the parliament with the surprise backing of the People’s Party, in exchange for the promise of constitutional reform.

This elevated Anutin’s previously provincial Bhumjaithai Party to be a national-level player. It also allowed him to attract influential defectors from other parties to consolidate his position.

Support for his government dropped in early December due to the mishandling of floods in southern Thailand and alleged connections of his government to transnational scam criminals.

Soon after, Anutin launched preemptive airstrikes against Cambodia over their border dispute. This boosted nationalist sentiment among the public and providing a welcome distraction from domestic pressures.

With the People’s Party looking ready to withdraw support from the ruling coalition, Anutin then dissolved parliament and called early elections.

The airstrikes, drone attacks and ground clashes continued for the next few weeks along the border, ensuring national security would be a key election theme. This worked in favour of the conservatives, but provided challenges for the People’s Party.

Do progressive stand a chance in Thailand?

Many of the People’s Party’s problems are rooted in the struggles of predecessor parties to gain a toehold in Thai politics.

In the last election in 2023, the Move Forward Party won the most seats. But its popular leader was prevented from becoming prime minister by conservative forces in Thai society.

Thailand’s Constitutional Court then dissolved the party. This followed a pattern: its predecessor, the Future Forward party, was dissolved after its strong showing in the 2019 election.

Within 24 hours of the polls closing last week, the National Anti-Corruption Commission unanimously ruled that 44 former lawmakers from the Move Forward party committed gross ethical misconduct by proposing amendments to the Criminal Code’s Section 112. This is the lèse majesté law that carries stiff penalties for insulting or defaming Thailand’s monarchy.

The lawmakers, which include the People’s Party leader, Natthaphong Ruengpanyawut, and 14 other newly elected party MPs, could face lifetime bans from politics.

Did support collapse for the People’s Party?

Although Bhumjaithai handily won the election, capturing nearly 200 seats out of 500 in the lower house, the voting data suggest the People’s Party did not haemorrhage support to Bhumjaithai, as various news headlines made it seem.

Under the military-authored 2017 constitution, Thailand’s lower house elections include 400 individual constituency seats elected by first-past-the-post and 100 party list seats elected by proportional representation.

Bhumjaithai did very well in rural and regional constituency seats, where alleged vote-buying and patronage networks are more prevalent.

Some groups across the country have demanded national recounts following reports of electoral irregularities, in addition to the release of vote counts from polling stations and the re-running of some races.

However, the People’s Party leader has acknowledged that even if there were irregularities, they wouldn’t have been substantial enough to change the outcome.

The party’s support in constituency seats was mostly concentrated in cosmopolitan centres with more educated urban voters, such as Bangkok, where it swept all 33 seats. However, it struggled to win seats in rural and regional areas.

In the national party list vote, though, the progressive party emerged clear winners. It earned around 30% of the national vote, compared with only 18% for Bhumjaithai in second place.

This suggests some people split their votes, supporting a Bhumjaithai candidate for their local seat and the People’s Party in the party list. Unfortunately for the People’s Party, the party list MPs only comprise one-fifth of the lower house.

In a small silver lining for progressive forces, a referendum on amending the constitution (held at the same time as the election) passed easily.

But Anutin and the conservatives are now in control of the drafting and approval process, which they could draw out for years. And in their hands, it may not deliver the changes sought by progressives anyway.

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

– ref. What Thailand’s election means for the future of the country – and its beleaguered pro-democracy forces – https://theconversation.com/what-thailands-election-means-for-the-future-of-the-country-and-its-beleaguered-pro-democracy-forces-272895

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Dennis B. Desmond, Lecturer, Cyberintelligence and Cybercrime Investigations, University of the Sunshine Coast

As a career counterintelligence officer for the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Defense Intelligence Agency, I worked inside a fully integrated intelligence system.

Signals intelligence from the National Security Agency guided investigations. Satellite imagery from the National Reconnaissance Office provided visibility into hostile environments. Human intelligence came through Defense Intelligence Agency channels.

These streams were strengthened by reporting from domestic and foreign partners. It was a closed, tightly controlled system.

But things have changed. Now private companies are supplying “intelligence as a service” to government entities and others – and as the Amazon-owned Ring doorbell camera company found out when it advertised a new feature last week, the change is not without controversy.

The rise of private intelligence

For most of the 20th century, intelligence remained the exclusive domain of nation states. Collection systems were expensive and specialised. They were protected by strict classification rules designed to safeguard sources and methods.

Intelligence agencies controlled the entire life cycle: human spying, signals interception, satellite surveillance, analysis, and dissemination to decision-makers. This created a closed command economy, where states maintained their own capabilities with legal oversight and institutional tradecraft.

Today, that monopoly is eroding. It’s being replaced by a commercial intelligence marketplace operating alongside – and increasingly inside – government security structures.

The shift began in the late 20th century as open-source intelligence became more valuable. This happened with the rise of online forums, social media platforms and commercial satellite imagery.

Companies entered this market, scraping images from the web and content from social media sites. Clearview AI, perhaps the most well known, entered this market in 2017 – offering to identify people based on photos from social media.

Businesses quickly recognised the opportunity. Intelligence could be produced commercially, packaged, and sold.

The surveillance economy

At the same time, a broader surveillance economy emerged. It was driven by private companies, not governments.

Acoustic gunshot detection systems illustrate this convergence. Originally designed for military force protection, these sensors are now deployed across cities, providing real-time alerts to police. In Australia, this has manifested itself with hardware store chain Bunnings incorporating facial recognition technology from Hitachi.

Uncrewed aerial vehicles – better known as drones – have followed a similar pattern. Once limited to military reconnaissance, sensor-equipped drones are now widely available commercially. Parts of the battlefield surveillance grid have migrated into civilian life.

Perhaps the most significant shift comes from everyday consumer technology. Internet-connected door cameras, home security systems, and other “Internet of Things” devices now form a vast, privately owned sensor network. This is likely to grow, as products such as Meta’s planned facial-recognition smart glasses hit the market.

Real intelligence value but real privacy concerns

These systems were never intended as intelligence tools. Yet their intelligence value is undeniable.

In the recent case of the kidnapping of Nancy Guthrie in Arizona, for example, Nest door camera footage helped reconstruct movements and identify a possible kidnapper. The data was captured passively, through daily digital life.

This is intelligence collection by proxy. It is constant, ambient, and privately owned.

Amazon Ring’s attempt to launch its “Search Party” program demonstrates the tension.

Framed as a community safety feature, the program proposed using AI to scan neighbourhood camera footage to locate missing pets.

Concern escalated when Ring explored partnering with Flock Safety, whose automated license plate reader networks are widely used by law enforcement. Linking home surveillance cameras with other tracking systems signalled the emergence of a fully integrated commercial intelligence network.

Public backlash was swift – especially after the capability was advertised during the Super Bowl. Critics argued the pet-recovery narrative masked the normalisation of mass surveillance.

Facing mounting privacy concerns, Ring ultimately abandoned the partnership.

Intelligence as a service

Commercial surveillance partnerships continue to expand. Networked cameras and license plate readers equipped with AI-powered object recognition enable vehicle tracking across jurisdictions.

Data brokers feed into this ecosystem too. They sell credit histories, utility records, and behavioural data to government clients.

Taken together, these developments represent “intelligence as a service”. Governments now buy cyber threat reporting, commercial sensor data, facial recognition, and behavioural analytics through subscriptions and data-sharing agreements. Intelligence production has become scalable, modular and market-driven.

This transformation raises serious governance questions. Commercial intelligence providers often operate under far looser legal restrictions. They allow agencies to circumvent data privacy laws.

Consumer-generated data, door cameras, vehicle telemetry and biometric identifiers can often be used by investigators without the need for a warrant. This complicates privacy protections and civil liberties safeguards.

None of this makes state intelligence services obsolete. Governments still retain unique authorities: human espionage, covert action, offensive cyber operations, and classified technical collection.

However, these capabilities now operate within a broader intelligence supply chain. Also in the mix are satellite firms, data brokers, AI analytics companies, and cyber intelligence vendors.

Questions for the future

The integration of commercial surveillance and artificial intelligence is likely to deepen.

Technology leaders envision a near future where cameras on homes, vehicles and public infrastructure feed constant video into AI systems. Citizens and police alike would operate under continuous algorithmic observation. Automated reporting would aim to shape behaviour.

The privatisation of intelligence is neither temporary nor accidental. It is the outcome of technological diffusion, data proliferation, and commercial innovation meeting demand from national security and law enforcement.

The question is not whether intelligence as a service will expand. It will.

The real question is different. What happens to national sovereignty, democratic oversight, and personal privacy when the power to collect and analyse intelligence no longer belongs solely to the state? What happens when it belongs to private actors willing to sell it?

Dennis B. Desmond receives funding from Australian Research Council, Australian Army. As a former intelligence officer, he used various data aggregators, Palantir, and Analyst Notebook for data analysis and intelligence production.

– ref. Amazon’s Ring wanted to track your pets. It revealed the future of surveillance – https://theconversation.com/amazons-ring-wanted-to-track-your-pets-it-revealed-the-future-of-surveillance-276020

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Kelsie Boulton, Senior Research Fellow in Child Neurodevelopment, Brain and Mind Centre, University of Sydney

When it comes to autism, few questions spark as much debate as how best to support autistic people with the greatest needs.

This prompted The Lancet medical journal to commission a group of international experts to propose a new category of “profound autism”.

This category describes autistic people who have little or no language (spoken, written, signed or via a communication device), who have an IQ of less than 50, and who require 24-hour supervision and support.

It would only apply to children aged eight and over, when their cognitive and communication abilities are considered more stable.

In our new study, we considered how the category could impact autism assessments. We found 24% of autistic children met, or were at risk of meeting, the criteria for profound autism.

Why the debate?

The category is intended to help governments and service providers plan and deliver supports, so autistic people with the highest needs aren’t overlooked. It also aims to re-balance their under-representation in mainstream autism research.

This new category may be helpful for advocating for a greater level of support, research and evidence for this group.

But some have raised concerns that autistic people who don’t fit into this category could be perceived as less in need and excluded from services and funding supports.

Others argue the category doesn’t sufficiently emphasise autistic people’s strengths and capabilities, and places too much emphasis on the challenges that are experienced.

What did we do?

We conducted the first Australian study to examine how the “profound autism” category might apply to children attending publicly funded diagnostic services for developmental conditions.

Drawing on the Australian Child Neurodevelopment Registry, we examined data from 513 autistic children assessed between 2019 and 2024. We asked:

• how many children met the criteria for profound autism?
• were there behavioural features that set this group apart?

Because we focused on children at the time of diagnosis, most (91%) were aged under eight years. We described these children as being “at risk of profound autism”.

What did we find?

Around 24% of autistic children in our study met, or were at risk of meeting, the criteria for profound autism. This is similar to the proportion of children internationally.

Almost half (49.6%) showed behaviours that were a safety risk, such as attempting to run away from carers, compared with one-third (31.2%) of other autistic children.

These challenges weren’t limited to children who met criteria for profound autism. Around one in five autistic children (22.5%) engaged in self-injury, and more than one-third (38.2%) showed aggression toward others.

So, while the category identified many children with very high needs, other children who didn’t meet these criteria also had significant needs.

Importantly, we found the definition of “profound autism” doesn’t always line up with the official diagnostic levels which determine the level of support and NDIS funding children receive.

In our study, 8% of children at risk of profound autism were classified as level 2, rather than level 3 (the highest level of support). Meanwhile, 17% of children classified as level 3 did not meet criteria for profound autism.

Our concern

We looked at children when they first received an autism diagnosis. Children were aged 18 months to 16 years, with more than 90% under the age of eight years.

This aligns with our earlier research, showing the average age of diagnosis in public settings is 6.6 years.

From a practical perspective, our biggest concern about the profound autism category is the age threshold of eight years.

Because most children are already assessed before age eight, introducing this category into assessment services would mean many families would need repeat assessments, placing additional strain on already stretched developmental services.

Second, modifications will be needed if this criteria is going to be used to inform funding decisions as it didn’t map perfectly onto level 3 support criteria.

On balance, however, our results suggest the profound autism category may provide a clear, measurable way to describe the needs of autistic people with the highest support requirements.

Every autistic child has individual strengths and needs. The term “profound autism” would need to be promoted with inclusive and supportive language, so as to not replace or diminish individual needs, but to help clinicians tailor supports and obtain additional resources when needed.

Including the category in future clinical guidelines, such as the national guideline for the assessment and diagnosis of autism, could help ensure governments, disability services and clinicians plan and deliver supports.

What can you do in the meantime?

If you’re concerned your child requires substantial support, here are some practical steps you can take to ensure their needs are recognised and addressed:

Explain your concerns

Not all clinicians have experience working with children with high support needs. Be as clear as possible about behaviours that affect your child’s safety or daily life, including self-injury, aggression or attempts to run away. These details, while difficult to share, help give a clearer picture of your child’s support needs.

It can also be a challenge to find and access clinicians with appropriate expertise. Another potential benefit of having a defined category is that it can better help families navigate care.

Ask about support for the whole family

Our studies show that many caregivers want more support for themselves but don’t always ask. Talk with clinicians about supports for yourself as well, including respite, or family support groups.

Reach out

Coming together with other carers and families can reduce your own isolation and normalise many of the unique challenges you face. Connecting with like-minded people can provide a supportive, empathetic and empowering community.

Plan for safety

For children with high support needs, prioritise safety planning with your child’s care team. This can include strategies to reduce risks, as well as planning how best to support your child’s interactions with health, education and disability services over time.

---

Read more:
Parents of autistic children are stressed. Here’s what they want you to know

---

Marie Antoinette Hodge is a Clinical Neuropsychologist at the Children’s Hospital at Westmead.

Kelsie Boulton and Rebecca Sutherland do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. A new diagnosis of ‘profound autism’ is on the cards. Here’s what could change – https://theconversation.com/a-new-diagnosis-of-profound-autism-is-on-the-cards-heres-what-could-change-271930

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Libby (Elizabeth) Sander, MBA Director & Associate Professor of Organisational Behaviour, Bond Business School, Bond University

Since the pandemic, offices around the world have quietly shrunk. Many organisations don’t need as much floor space or as many desks, given many staff now do a mix of hybrid work from home and the office.

But on days when more staff are required to be in, office spaces can feel noticeably busier and noisier. Despite so much focus on getting workers back into offices, there has been far less focus on the impacts of returning to open-plan workspaces.

Now, more research confirms what many suspected: our brains have to work harder in open-plan spaces than in private offices.

What the latest study tested

In a recently published study, researchers at a Spanish university fitted 26 people, aged in their mid-20s to mid-60s, with wireless electroencephalogram (EEG) headsets. EEG testing can measure how hard the brain is working by tracking electrical activity through sensors on the scalp.

Participants completed simulated office tasks, such as monitoring notifications, reading and responding to emails, and memorising and recalling lists of words.

Each participant was monitored while completing the tasks in two different settings: an open-plan workspace with colleagues nearby, and a small enclosed work “pod” with clear glazed panels on one side.

The researchers focused on the frontal regions of the brain, responsible for attention, concentration, and filtering out distractions. They measured different types of brain waves.

As neuroscientist Susan Hillier explains in more detail, different brain waves reveal distinct mental states:

• “gamma” is linked with states or tasks that require more focused concentration
• “beta” is linked with higher anxiety and more active states, with attention often directed externally
• “alpha” is linked with being very relaxed, and passive attention (such as listening quietly but not engaging)
• “theta” is linked with deep relaxation and inward focus
• and “delta” is linked with deep sleep.

The Spanish study found that the same tasks done inside the enclosed pod vs the open-plan workspace produced completely opposite patterns.

It takes effort to filter out distractions

In the work pod, the study found beta waves – associated with active mental processing – dropped significantly over the experiment, as did alpha waves linked to passive attention and overall activity in the frontal brain regions.

This meant people’s brains needed progressively less effort to sustain the same work.

The open-plan office testing showed the reverse.

Gamma waves, linked to complex mental processing, climbed steadily. Theta waves, which track both working memory and mental fatigue, increased. Two key measures also rose significantly: arousal (how alert and activated the brain is) and engagement (how much mental effort is being applied).

In other words, in the open-plan office participants’ brains had to work harder to maintain performance.

Even when we try to ignore distractions, our brain has to expend mental effort to filter them out.

In contrast, the pod eliminated most background noise and visual disruptions, allowing participant’s brains to work more efficiently.

Researchers also found much wider variability in the open office. Some people’s brain activity increased dramatically, while others showed modest changes. This suggests individual differences in how distracting we find open-plan spaces.

With only 26 participants, this was a relatively small study. But its findings echo a significant body of research from the past decade.

What past research has shown

In our 2021 study, my colleagues and I found a significant causal relationship between open-plan office noise and physiological stress. Studying 43 participants in controlled conditions – using heart rate, skin conductivity and AI facial emotion recognition – we found negative mood in open plan offices increased by 25% and physiological stress by 34%.

Another study showed background conversations and noisy environments can degrade cognitive task performance and increase distraction for workers.

And a 2013 analysis of more than 42,000 office workers in the United States, Finland, Canada and Australia found those in open-plan offices were less satisfied with their work environment than those in private offices. This was largely due to increased, uncontrollable noise and lack of privacy.

Just as we now recognise poorly designed chairs cause physical strain, years of research has shown how workspace design can result in cognitive strain.

What to do about it

The ability to focus and concentrate without interruption and distraction is a fundamental requirement for modern knowledge work.

Yet the value of uninterrupted work continues to be undervalued in workplace design.

Creating zones where workers can match their workplace environment to the task is essential.

Responding to having more staff doing hybrid work post-pandemic, LinkedIn redesigned its flagship San Francisco office. LinkedIn halved the number of workstations in open plan areas, instead experimenting with 75 types of work settings, including work areas for quiet focus.

For organisations looking to look after their workers’ brains, there are practical measures to consider. These include setting up different work zones, acoustic treatments and sound-masking technologies, and thoughtfully placed partitions to reduce visual and auditory distractions.

While adding those extra features in may cost more upfront than an open plan office, they can be worth it. Research has shown the significant hidden toll of poor office design on productivity, health and employee retention.

Providing workers with more choice in how much they’re exposed to noise and other interruptions is not a luxury. To get more done, with less strain on our brains, better design at work should be seen as a necessity.

Libby (Elizabeth) Sander has received Industry Connections Grant research funding from the Australian government.

– ref. Why your brain has to work harder in an open-plan office than private offices: study – https://theconversation.com/why-your-brain-has-to-work-harder-in-an-open-plan-office-than-private-offices-study-274946

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Hamid R. Jamali, Professor, School of Information and Communication Studies, Charles Sturt University

Scientific publishing relies on peer review as the mechanism that maintains trust in what we publish. When we read a journal article, we assume experts have rigorously scrutinised it before publication. This crucial system is currently under severe strain.

We conducted a comprehensive study of Australian academic journals and their editors – surveying 139 editors and interviewing 27. The picture is concerning.

Finding qualified peer reviewers has become one of the most significant challenges editors face. When peer review cannot be secured adequately, both the long-term viability of journals and research integrity suffer. The voluntary system underpinning academic trust is breaking down.

The scale of the crisis

More than half of the editors we surveyed (55%) rated finding reviewers as a significant or very significant challenge.

Some described having to send out 30 or more invitations to secure just two reviewers. One called the process “ridiculous”. Another expressed frustration with authors who had recently published in their journal yet “repeatedly refuse to review” for it.

There are also reviewers who say yes and then never do the review, which delays the process further.

The consequences are significant. Some journals now reject manuscripts outright when they cannot find suitable reviewers, despite the work being in scope and potentially valuable.

Publishing articles takes longer and quality research can go unpublished because it cannot be properly peer reviewed. This is a systemic crisis.

Why academics decline review invitations

Peer review remains entirely voluntary. Academics review manuscripts without payment, formal recognition, or acknowledgement in their workload.

Researchers face pressure to increase the quantity, quality and impact of their research. At the same time, universities are actively discouraging the activities that sustain scholarly publishing, with many editors reporting that their universities have removed editorial and peer review roles from workload models entirely.

As a consequence of workload intensification, scholars protect their time more carefully. Post-COVID shifts in work-life balance have also made academics more selective about how they allocate effort. At the same time, submission volumes continue to grow: more papers to review, fewer willing reviewers, besides the fact that not every author is a qualified reviewer.

There is also a lack of reciprocity. Authors who have just published often decline to review. Some editors suggested publishing in a journal should come with an obligation to review for it.

Current strategies fall short

Editors, of course, have developed workarounds. These include using databases to identify reviewers, running reviewer training workshops to mentor emerging scholars, mining reference lists, and relying more heavily on editorial boards.

They also report rejecting more papers at the initial screening stage, before sending them out for peer review, to reduce the number of manuscripts that need reviewing. But this increases the time required of editors.

An emerging concern raised by some editors is the appearance of reviews generated by artificial intelligence (AI). These reviews can be vague, confusing, and fail to improve manuscripts. This worsens the crisis. Peer review is supposed to be conducted by peers after all.

Systemic change is essential

Short-term strategies won’t solve this crisis.

Some proposed solutions include paying reviewers or introducing mandatory review requirements for authors to review an equal number of articles to those they publish. But these are not easy to implement.

Peer review is so integral to the scholarly system that research would grind to a halt without it.

Yet it remains invisible in how universities and research bodies measure success in the current metric-driven culture.

The core of the problem, as one editor put it, is that “the extrinsic or intrinsic benefits are just not as strong as they used to be”. Therefore, it needs to be better recognised and incentivised by universities and other stakeholders by actions such as including it in workload models, highlighting it in promotion criteria and so on.

Why this matters

This crisis affects all of us who rely on published research. It threatens the viability of journals, particularly local or independent journals not owned by big publishers. But fundamentally, it jeopardises the integrity of the scientific record itself.

We have built a publishing system dependent entirely on voluntary labour, especially for local and independent journals. Without significant change – without formal recognition, support, and genuine incentives – the shortage of reviewers will deepen. Publication schedules will suffer. The diversity of publishing outlets will diminish. Trust in peer review will erode.

The solution requires action from multiple stakeholders including universities, funders and research assessment bodies.

Scholarly communities must understand that sustaining peer review is a shared responsibility. The voluntary system underpinning academic trust has been taken for granted too long. It’s time to start properly valuing it.

Edward Luca is an Associate Editor of the Journal of the Australian Library and Information Association (JALIA) and a Director of the Aurora Foundation Ltd.

Hamid R. Jamali and Simon Wakeling do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. The peer review system is breaking down. Here’s how we can fix it – https://theconversation.com/the-peer-review-system-is-breaking-down-heres-how-we-can-fix-it-275317

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Robyn Eckersley, Redmond Barry Professor of Political Science, School of Social and Political Sciences, The University of Melbourne

Regulating climate emissions just became more difficult. US President Donald Trump announced on Thursday the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has repealed its own 2009 legal finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger human health.

Vindicated by a Supreme Court ruling in 2007, and based on scientific evidence, this so-called endangerment finding by the EPA provided the legal warrant for the regulation of greenhouse gases by the federal government. It underpinned the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan, which regulated emissions from power plants. In his first term, Trump had tried to weaken it but a new version was introduced by the Biden administration.

Without the endangerment finding, and in the absence of new laws passed by both Houses of Congress, the federal government lacks the legal mandate for direct regulation of greenhouse emissions. The science hasn’t changed, but the obligation to act on it has been scrubbed out.

If you imagine the United States as a collection of big greenhouse gas pots with lids, the Trump administration has been lifting the lids off one by one, releasing more emissions by stepping up fossil fuel extraction, production and consumption. This legal finding held down the biggest lid on climate emissions — and Trump has pulled it right off. This will have a structural effect globally.

What is the endangerment finding, and how was it developed?

In 1970, when the US environment movement was at its most influential, Congress passed an important piece of legislation called the Clean Air Act. It empowered the new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to declare something a pollutant if it endangered public health. Initially, it was used to regulate pollutants such as smog or coal ash, the byproducts of industry.

During the George W. Bush presidency, the EPA made a ruling that greenhouse gases were also a pollutant within the meaning of the Clean Air Act. This ruling was challenged in 2007 by fossil fuel interests in the case of Massachusetts v EPA, but the court ruled (five judges to four) that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases were “air pollutants” that endangered human health and welfare. It directed the EPA to assess their impact on human welfare — allowing the agency to regulate them.

However, the Bush administration did not push the EPA to implement the ruling.

How was the endangerment finding used for climate action?

President Barack Obama promised to act on climate during his election campaign but faced a hostile Senate when he came to power. His efforts to enact an emission trading bill failed.

However, the endangerment finding allowed him to use his executive power to direct the EPA to regulate emissions. In his first term, the EPA issued new vehicle emissions regulations for cars and light trucks, and some power plants and refineries.

In his second term, Obama extended those regulations to all power plants. These moves represented the US’s first significant steps towards emissions reductions. They enhanced Obama’s diplomatic credibility in the negotiations for the Paris Agreement in 2015. This provided a footing for bilateral cooperation with China on clean energy, helping to build diplomatic trust between the world’s two biggest emitters. Their lead negotiators worked together in the final days of the negotiations to get the Paris Agreement over the line.

Why has Trump overturned it?

On February 12, Trump announced the EPA would rescind the legal finding it has relied on for nearly 20 years. Among all the wrecking balls he has swung at efforts to decarbonise the US economy, this is the biggest. He claims the legal finding hurts Americans. The EPA’s director, Trump-appointed Lee Zeldin, called the rule the “holy grail of climate change religion”.

“This determination had no basis in fact — none whatsoever,” Trump told the media on Thursday. “And it had no basis in law. On the contrary, over the generations, fossil fuels have saved millions of lives and lifted billions of people out of poverty all over the world.”

But without federal action to curb emissions, the impact of climate change will intensify. The US is the “indispensable state” when it comes achieving the goals and principles of the Paris Agreement. Although China’s annual aggregate emissions are much higher than the US’s, the US is the world’s largest historical emitter, which makes it the most causally responsible for the global heating that has already occurred.

Yet the Trump administration regards climate change as a hoax. Trump has withdrawn the US not only from the Paris Agreement but also the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. In short, the US is now actively fanning the flame of global heating.

In a case of history repeating itself, the arguments being made by Zedlin are pretty much the same as those once put forward by the original opponents of the endangerment finding: claiming that the original legislation was supposed to apply only to local pollutants such as smog, but not greenhouse gases, and that the science isn’t clear.

Those arguments don’t stack up, because there is indisputable evidence that increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases do indeed harm human health and welfare. The EPA is obliged to regulate harmful pollutants at the specific source.

What’s next?

This move will trigger court cases, which won’t be resolved quickly. Zedlin and Trump will face a crowd of litigants, including environment groups and NGOs. The Trump administration will likely ignore these and steam ahead with its “drill, baby, drill” slogan.

If the lawsuits fail, or Trump ignores them, it will be devastating. There will be no overarching federal legislation directly regulating emissions in the US. What’s more, a new Democrat president committed to climate action will not have this easy lever to regulate greenhouse gases. Instead, they will have to get new climate legislation through an intensely polarised Congress.

However, there are ways forward. Assuming Trump is prepared to leave office after his second term (admittedly, a big if), it is possible a new Democratic administration might have the numbers in Congress to enact new climate legislation. In the meantime, climate action is continuing to ratchet up at the state and city level in many US states.

Robyn Eckersley currently receives funding from the Norwegian Research Council.

– ref. Trump has scrapped the long-standing legal basis for tackling climate emissions – https://theconversation.com/trump-has-scrapped-the-long-standing-legal-basis-for-tackling-climate-emissions-275921