The Conversation – Page 960 – MIL Submissions Engine

July 5, 2025

Sugary drinks are a killer: a 20% tax would save lives and rands in South Africa

Source: The Conversation – Africa (2) – By Susan Goldstein, Associate Professor and Director of the SAMRC/Wits Centre for Health Economics and Decision Science – PRICELESS SA (Priority Cost Effective Lessons in Systems Strengthening South Africa), University of the Witwatersrand

Non-communicable diseases such as diabetes, hypertension and cardiovascular conditions account for over 70% of global deaths annually.

In South Africa, non-communicable diseases cause more than half of all deaths. Diabetes ranks as the second leading cause after tuberculosis.

A major contributor to rising diabetes rates is the high consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages, including cooldrinks.

The World Health Organization recommends a tax of at least 20% on sugary drinks as an effective tool to help reduce consumption and curb related health risks.

South Africa introduced a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages, officially known as the Health Promotion Levy, in 2018.

The tax applies at R0.0221 ($0.0012) per gram of sugar beyond a 4g/100ml threshold, amounting to an 8% of final selling price. The tax has increased slightly since it was introduced, but not in line with inflation. The Health Promotion Levy therefore falls short of the original 20% target as industry pressure led to a watered-down version of it.

I lead the South African Medical Research Council/Wits Centre for Health Economics and Decision Science – PRICELESS SA, which has been studying various aspects of the levy for over 10 years.

PRICELESS SA is still in the process of measuring the health and financial impact of not implementing the Health Promotion Levy at the recommended 20%. A lack of recent data adds to this challenge. But it is worth noting that the World Obesity Report shows that obesity is still a severe problem in South Africa.

Without interventions, obesity in South Africa is projected to affect 30 million adults and 10 million children by 2035. In 2019 there were 55,238 deaths in South Africa from non-communicable diseases attributable to obesity, and with an annual increase of 2.3% in obesity, deaths are going to increase.

Taxing sugary beverages is effective

Despite the sugar industry’s claims that the Health Promotion Levy is ineffective, global evidence strongly suggests otherwise. Countries that have implemented such taxes have seen significant declines in sugar consumption.

Sugar-sweetened beverage taxes have been implemented in 103 countries and territories globally and have been shown to be effective in many countries.

In Ireland there was a 30.2% reduction in sugar intake through these beverages.

In California a study showed a decrease in overweight and obesity among young people living in cities where there was a sugary beverage tax.

In Mexico, a sugar-sweetened beverages tax at 1 peso ($0.05) per litre was introduced in 2014, and by 2016, sugary drinks sales had dropped by 37%.

Similarly, in the UK, a tax introduced in 2018 led to a 35.4% reduction in sugar consumption from taxed beverages.

The levy has had a positive impact in South Africa. Studies show decreased purchasing of these beverages. There were greater reductions in sales among lower socioeconomic groups and in sub-populations with higher sugary drink consumption.

Mean sugar from taxable beverage purchases fell from 16.25 g/capita per day from the pre-health promotion levy announcement to 10.63 g/capita per day in the year after implementation.

Lower-income households, which initially purchased more taxable sugary beverages than wealthier households, showed the most significant reductions in consumption after the tax was enforced.

This is particularly important as non-communicable diseases disproportionately affect poor and vulnerable populations.

Stronger taxation on sugary beverages not only decreases consumption but also encourages reformulation by manufacturers, leading to healthier products.

The levy does not cause job losses

Sugar-related industries often argue that the tax has led to massive job losses.

Our research contradicts these claims.

A recent study carried out by PRICELESS SA, funded by Bloomberg Philanthropies through the University of North Carolina and the South African Medical Research Council, showed no significant association between the levy and employment levels. It showed that the levy had not been associated with job creation or job losses in sugar-related industries. These include agriculture, beverage manufacturing and commercial enterprises that sell food and beverages.

The study suggests several factors that may explain this:

Firstly, firms may reallocate labour within their operations rather than
cut jobs.

Secondly, many beverage producers have responded to the tax by reformulating their products, reducing the sugar content and using non-nutritive sweeteners rather than reducing production.

Thirdly, demand for taxed sugary drinks has not declined enough to affect employment.

Finally, consumers often switch to untaxed alternatives produced by the same companies, preventing financial losses to the industry.

Increasing the levy is beneficial to the public purse

The recent delay of South Africa’s budget speech, due to disagreements within the government over the proposed value added tax increase of two percentage points, highlights the urgent need for additional and alternative revenue sources.

South Africa’s health system is experiencing a massive financial burden due to overweight and obesity, costing R33 billion (US$1.78 billion) annually. This expense accounts for 15.38% of the government’s health expenditure and 0.67% of the country’s GDP. On a per-person basis, the annual cost of overweight and obesity is R2,769 (US$150).

On the other hand, the levy generated R5.8 billion (US$313m) in revenue over its first two fiscal years.

Beyond raising funds, a higher tax rate would provide public health benefits and savings for health services.

Based on our research, increasing the levy to 20% in South Africa could reduce obesity rates by 2.4 to 3.8 percentage points, prevent 85,000 strokes, and save 72,000 lives over two decades.

These improvements potentially save over R5 billion (US$270m) in medical costs.

Unlike other taxation measures, which affect all consumers equally, the levy primarily targets discretionary purchases, making it a fairer fiscal tool.

Therefore, government must act – raise the Health Promotion Levy to 20% and cut the sugar-fuelled health crisis at its root.

Raising the levy to 20% would be a smarter tax for a healthier nation.

Darshen Naidoo, Legal Researcher and Associate Lecturer at PRICELESS SA, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg contributed to the article.

Susan Goldstein on behalf of PRICELESS receives funding from the Bloomberg Foundation, the SAMRC and the National Institutes for Health Research

– ref. Sugary drinks are a killer: a 20% tax would save lives and rands in South Africa – https://theconversation.com/sugary-drinks-are-a-killer-a-20-tax-would-save-lives-and-rands-in-south-africa-251393

July 5, 2025

Sea of opportunity: protecting mangroves and seagrass could boost Indonesia’s new climate targets

Source: The Conversation – Indonesia – By Brurce Muhammad Mecca, Senior Analyst, Climateworks Centre

Aerial view of Mangrove forest, Mandalika, Nusa Tenggara Barat, Indonesia. (Shutterstock)

Indonesia has signalled it could include blue carbon ecosystems — carbon-rich coastal and marine areas, like mangroves and seagrass — in its new climate targets. This shift follows years of relying heavily on the forestry and land sectors as well as the energy sector.

This could be a turning point, given Indonesia is one of the most important countries globally for ocean-based climate change mitigation. Indonesia’s blue carbon ecosystems are crucial, housing 22% of the world’s mangroves and 5% of seagrass meadows.

However, the country is losing its mangroves and seagrass in recent years due to changes in land use. As of 2019, only 16% of mangroves and 45% of seagrass were inside protected areas. Damage to mangrove and seagrass ecosystems can release carbon into the atmosphere, exacerbating climate change.

For that reason, it’s crucial that Indonesia considers establishing more protected areas for its mangrove and seagrass ecosystems as part of its new climate targets. This could shield them from harmful activities like industrial fishing, unsustainable aquaculture, massive infrastructure development and overtourism.

Two kinds of protected areas

A 2023 Climateworks Centre study highlighted how Indonesia could prevent up to 60 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions per year by 2030 – equal to Singapore’s 2030 emissions reduction target – by protecting 39,000 hectares per year of mangroves and 8,600 hectares per year of seagrasses. The combined area of these mangroves and seagrasses is almost three-quarters the size of Jakarta.

One way to do this is by including both ecosystems inside two kinds of protected areas. The first is marine protected areas (MPAs), which are areas designated by the government to protect essential ecosystems. The other kind — known as other effective area-based conservation measures (OECM) – are just as crucial for ecosystem protection.

Many activities are prohibited in marine protected areas, such as industrial fishing, mass tourism and mining. The government plans to increase Indonesia’s MPA cover from 8% to 10% by 2030, which is an opportunity to prioritise mangroves and seagrass.

Meanwhile, OECMs can allow Indonesia to target, recognise, and support areas beyond marine protected areas. These other conservation measures can play an important role in protecting blue carbon ecosystems across the country.

For example, the indigenous community of Rote Ndao in Eastern Indonesia’s traditional marine management system protects the local marine ecosystems – despite not being considered an marine protected area. Research shows that Indonesia has more than 390 potential marine OECMs. Many have conservation measures that have been implemented by local communities for centuries.

Key places to protect

While Indonesia still urgently requires broad investment in the collection of high-quality data for mapping blue ecosystems, our findings highlight some key priority locations for mangroves and seagrass to be included in the country’s ocean strategy.

For mangrove ecosystems, we highlight Kalimantan and Papua as areas of particular importance. Between 2009 and 2019, approximately 19% of mangroves in Kalimantan (58,000 hectares) were deforested due to palm oil and aquaculture. By comparison, Papua has a large area of carbon-dense mangroves, and a low historic rate of deforestation.

Meanwhile, protection of seagrass is quite tricky because an Indonesian seagrass map has not been completed.

Before defining specific seagrass areas to be protected, the government can verify the data in provinces such as Maluku, North Maluku, Bangka Belitung Islands, South East Sulawesi, West Papua and South Sulawesi. These areas have the potential for seagrass ecosystems to be included in a protection plan.

The government could also prioritise seagrass ecosystems in the Riau Islands and West Nusa Tenggara. These regions have extensive seagrass areas lacking marine protected area coverage.

A new target for mangrove and seagrass protection

Indonesia can set a clear and measurable area-based target to protect its mangrove and seagrass ecosystems in the upcoming climate targets. This could align the country’s climate actions on ocean and marine to its overall climate ambition. It will also lay the foundation for attracting climate financing, which Indonesia will need to achieve its targets.

Local participation is also important. Indonesia can design and implement its mangrove and seagrass ecosystems protection target with the involvement and consent of local communities. This would align with Indonesia’s existing targets, such as its Blue Economy Roadmap, to ensure coordinated efforts across government agencies.

As the world works towards net zero emissions, Indonesia has a huge opportunity to boost its climate leadership. Protecting and restoring more of the country’s carbon-rich mangroves and seagrass meadows can ensure the future thriving of marine ecosystems that so many Indonesians rely on.

Editor’s Note : In 13 August, 11.57 AM WIB, we made a correction to a sentence in the article’s previous version:

“By comparison, Papua has a large area of carbon-dense mangroves, and a low historic rate of deforestation, with no indication of this changing.”

The previous sentence was inaccurate because while the historic rate was low, the implication was deforestation would continue, when in fact there are indications this could change in the future.

We replaced the sentence with “By comparison, Papua has a large area of carbon-dense mangroves, and a low historic rate of deforestation.”

Para penulis tidak bekerja, menjadi konsultan, memiliki saham atau menerima dana dari perusahaan atau organisasi mana pun yang akan mengambil untung dari artikel ini, dan telah mengungkapkan bahwa ia tidak memiliki afiliasi di luar afiliasi akademis yang telah disebut di atas.

– ref. Sea of opportunity: protecting mangroves and seagrass could boost Indonesia’s new climate targets – https://theconversation.com/sea-of-opportunity-protecting-mangroves-and-seagrass-could-boost-indonesias-new-climate-targets-229819

July 5, 2025

Indonesia can expand its gastrodiplomacy via plant-based meals in Europe: Research

Source: The Conversation – Indonesia – By Meilinda Sari Yayusman, Researcher in International Relations and European Studies, Badan Riset dan Inovasi Nasional (BRIN)

Raw vegetable and lettuce salad with Indonesian fried tempeh. Gekko Gallery/Shutterstock

Gastrodiplomacy as the practice of a country’s diplomacy by promoting its cuisine, is now gaining popularity in several countries across the globe, including South Korea and Thailand.

South Korea, for example, has introduced its so-called “Kimchi Diplomacy” in the world for the past years as part of the country’s soft power in promoting culinary culture. Thailand, meanwhile, has been spreading the influence of Thai food and expanding Thai restaurants around the globe, attracting the global communities to eat authentic Thai cuisine.

Indonesia, with diverse food and beverages as well as indigenous spices, has also started to resort to this strategy to promote the country in the global forum.

Our unpublished observation based on fieldwork in May 2023 and literature reviews since mid-2021 resulted in a recommendation for the Indonesian government to take advantage of its diverse menu for its gastrodiplomacy agenda.

We recommend Indonesia emphasise plant-based dishes for its gastrodiplomacy strategy in Europe, given the region’s rising trend of plant-based food consumption.

Why plant-based food

A growing number of people are increasingly considering plant-based food as a dietary alternative to maintain their health following global concerns on the negative impacts of processed foods on health, society and the environment.

Gado-gado (Indonesian authentic salad with peanut dressing).
Endah Kurnia P/Shutterstock

Indonesia has a lot of ingredients and spices to create plant-based menus that have met global healthy standards.

Among them are tempeh, a traditional Indonesian food made from fermented soybeans. The fermentation increases its nutritional quality. Tempeh has been known in the Netherlands and already has consumers in Europe. However, it is not widespread yet in the whole continent.

Gado-gado, the famous Indonesian salad with its authentic peanut butter dressing, has also seen an emerging popularity in the global market. From our fieldwork, we have learned that almost all Indonesian restaurants worldwide, such as in The Hague and Amsterdam, the Netherlands, usually have gado-gado on their menus.

Other plant-based cuisines that have potential to gain popularity abroad are asinan (fruit salad preserved with vinegar) and gudeg (jackfruit stewed in coconut milk).

However, our observation shows that Indonesian vegan menus have yet to be widely known in Europe and other continents. Indonesia should promote them in the global market.

Why Europe

Plant-based food trend has been currently growing in many industrialised countries, especially in Europe.

Gudeg, a traditional Javanese dish from Indonesia’s Yogyakarta, is made from young unripe jack fruit stewed for several hours with palm sugar, and coconut milk.
Ricky_herawan/Shutterstock

In Europe, the value of plant-based food sales increased by 49% between 2018 and 2020. This includes an expansion in the market for plant-based substitutes for meat and dairy.

In the Netherlands, for example, sales rose by 50% during the same period. Germany and Poland have also witnessed a notable surge in the sales of plant-based food products, with an increase of 97% and 62%, respectively.

With the change in people’s food consumption habits, Europe can be a significant, promising market for Indonesia to expand the promotion of its plant-based food products.

Taking advantage of current presence

The fact that Indonesia’s culinary presence in Europe is already evident, particularly in the Netherlands, should benefit Indonesia.

Based on our finding, no less than 392 Indonesian restaurants are operating in West and South Europe, majority of which (295) is in the Netherlands. They have become popular since the 1970s.

For hundreds of years, the Netherlands colonised parts of what is now Indonesia. The colonial history between the two nations has created a sense of romanticism, including what and how they ate in the past.

Many Indonesian citizens living in European countries own Indonesian cuisine restaurants, and recently, they have started to develop plant-based menus in their kitchens.

The Netherlands offers a promising hub for introducing Indonesian foods and establishing Indonesian restaurants in other parts of Europe.

Tofu is an Indonesian traditional food made from soybean.
Erly Damayanti/Shutterstock

As part of our observation, we visited some Indonesian restaurants in the Netherlands that are developing plant-based menus in their kitchens for vegans and vegetarians, in response to the rising popularity of plant-based food in European society.

Among them were De Vegetarische Toko, Toko Kalimantan, Bali Brunch 82 and Praboemoelih. They serve gado-gado, variants of tempeh and tofu and tumis buncis (vegetable stir-fry).

De Vegetarische Toko, for example, has creatively transformed some authentic Indonesian foods into vegan and vegetarian-friendly versions. They replace the meats in menus like rendang (slow-cooked beef stew in coconut milk and spices) and semur (beef stew) with tempeh, tofu, beans and peanuts.

With these creative innovations, these restaurants may have an excellent opportunity to extend and promote Indonesian plant-based meals more widely to other parts of Europe, thus supporting Indonesia’s gastrodiplomacy.

More support needed

Indonesia has acknowledged its gastrodiplomacy potential through several programs.

In 2021, Indonesia launched “Indonesia Spice Up the World”. It becomes the country’s first-ever concrete initiative to promote Indonesian cuisine and attract investment opportunities in local spices and herbs.

The initiative aims to increase Indonesian spice exports to US$2 billion, launch approximately 4,000 Indonesian restaurants abroad by 2024 and make Indonesia a culinary destination in the future.

To support this kind of initiative, the Indonesian government should regularly and intensively communicate with all stakeholders involved in the Indonesian culinary industry. The partnership should aim to support Indonesian diaspora entrepreneurs looking to start businesses in the food sector abroad.

One example is offering soft loans to these food entrepreneurs.
Bank BNI, Indonesia’s fourth-largest bank, has begun offering this kind of loan.

It is time for Indonesia to strengthen its international existence through gastrodiplomacy by taking advantage of the rising consumption of plant-based meals among global communities. Tempeh, gado-gado, asinan and gudeg can become a powerful weapon of Indonesia’s soft diplomacy on the global stage.

Meilinda Sari Yayusman receives funding by the Institute of Social Sciences and Humanities, National Research and Innovation Agency (BRIN), Indonesia.

Andika Ariwibowo receives funding by the Institute of Social Sciences and Humanities, National Research and Innovation Agency (BRIN), Indonesia.

Prima Nurahmi Mulyasari receives funding by the Institute of Social Sciences and Humanities, National Research and Innovation Agency (BRIN), Indonesia.

Ahmad Nuril Huda tidak bekerja, menjadi konsultan, memiliki saham, atau menerima dana dari perusahaan atau organisasi mana pun yang akan mengambil untung dari artikel ini, dan telah mengungkapkan bahwa ia tidak memiliki afiliasi selain yang telah disebut di atas.

– ref. Indonesia can expand its gastrodiplomacy via plant-based meals in Europe: Research – https://theconversation.com/indonesia-can-expand-its-gastrodiplomacy-via-plant-based-meals-in-europe-research-209193

July 5, 2025

Difficult work arrangements force many women to stop breastfeeding early. Here’s how to prevent this

Source: The Conversation – Indonesia – By Andini Pramono, Research officer, Department of Health Economics, Wellbeing and Society, National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, Australian National University

Research shows that six months of exclusive breastfeeding, and continuing until two years old or beyond, provide multiple benefits for the baby and mother.

It can prevent deaths both in infants and mothers – including in wealthy nations like the United States. It also benefits the global economy and the enviroment.

However, after maternity leave ends, mothers returning to paid work face many challenges maintaining breastfeeding. This often leads mothers to stop breastfeeding their children before six months – the duration of exclusive breastfeeding recommended by the World Health Organisation (WHO) and others.

According to the WHO, less than half of babies under six months old worldwide are exclusively breastfed.

In Indonesia, research shows 83% of mothers initiate breastfeeding, but only 57% are still breastfeeding at around six months. In Australia, 96% of mothers start breastfeeding, but then there is a rapid fall to only 39% by around three months and only 15% by around five months.

Among the key reasons for low rates of exclusive breastfeeding are the difficult work conditions women face when they return to paid work.

So how can governments and workplaces – especially in countries that have yet to do enough, like Indonesia and Australia – better support breastfeeding mothers, particularly at work?

Half a billion reasons to change

For more than a century, the International Labour Organization (ILO) has set global standards for maternity protection through the Maternity Protection Convention and accompanying recommendations, as well as the ILO Workers with Family Responsibilities Convention, aiming to protect female workers’ rights.

So far, only 66 member states have ratified at least one of the Maternity Protection Conventions, while 43 have ratified the Workers with Family Responsibilities Convention. Unfortunately, Indonesia has not ratified either convention. So far, Australia has only ratified the family responsibilities convention.

In some countries, protections are aligned with the ILO Conventions. For example, in Denmark and Norway, the governments offer maternity leave of at least 14 weeks. During leave, mothers’ earnings are protected at a rate of at least two-thirds of their pre-birth earnings. Public funds ensure this is done in a manner determined by national law and practice, so the employer is not solely responsible for the payment.

A Canadian study highlights the proportion of mothers exclusively breastfeeding to six months increased by almost 40% when paid maternity leave was expanded from six to 12 months. At the same time, average breastfeeding duration increased by one month, from five to six months.

Evidence shows paid maternity leave and providing an adequate lactation room at work both contribute positively to breastfeeding rates.

Despite this, half a billion women globally still lack adequate maternity protections.

For example, welfare reforms in the US encouraging new mothers’ return to work within 12 weeks led to a 16–18% reduction in breastfeeding initiation. It also saw a four to six week reduction in the time babies were breastfed.

Indonesia and Australia aren’t doing enough

Neither Indonesia or Australia are currently doing enough to meet the ILO’s maternity protection standards.

In Indonesia, the 2003 Labour Law urges companies to give 12 weeks of paid maternity leave for women workers to support breastfeeding. Furthermore, the 2012 regulation on exclusive breastfeeding obligates workplace and public space management to provide a space or facility to breastfeed and express breast milk. However, the monitoring of its implementation is weak.

In Australia, paid parental leave (PPL) policy supports parents who take time off from paid work to care for their young children.

Eligible working mothers or primary carers are entitled to up to 20 weeks (or 22 weeks if the child is born or adopted from 1 July 2024) of government paid parental leave within the first two years of the birth or adoption of a child.

In the Federal Budget announced on 15 May 2024, the Australian government has added payment of superannuation contributions to the parental leave package for births and adoptions on or after 1 July 2025. However, the PPL is a low amount, paid at the national minimum wage ($882.80 per week)].

Some mothers can combine the government payment with additional paid leave from their employer. However in 2022-2023, only 63% of Australian employers offered this, leaving nearly half of new mothers with only minimum financial support.

Unlike Indonesia, Australia has no legal requirement for employers to offer paid breastfeeding breaks in their workplace, so mothers can express and take home their breastmilk. This can badly impact women’s and children’s health.

While Australia’s support for breastfeeding mothers is welcome, it’s still inadequate to meet the ILO’s international standard – particularly Australia’s low payment rate of government PPL (at the minimum wage, rather than two-thirds of previous earnings) and the lack of legislation for paid breastfeeding breaks.

How employers and colleagues can help

Globally, the barriers to maintain breastfeeding include not only lack of maternity leave duration and pay, but also unavailability of breastfeeding and breast pumping facilities at workplaces, sometimes unsupportive colleagues and supervisors, and lack of time at work to breastfeed or expressing breastmilk.

Breastfeeding a baby should not preclude women from earning a living. In 2022, female workers were 39.5% of total workers globally, while in Australia and Indonesia they made up 47.4% and 39.5% respectively.

An accessible facility or space for breastfeeding or breast pumping is vital to support breastfeeding working mothers.

In Indonesia, a 2013 Ministry of Health regulation outlines the procedure for an employer to provide a space and facility for mothers to breastfeed and breast pump.

The minimum specifications of this facility are described as a lockable, clean and quiet room, with a sink for washing, suitable temperature, lighting and flooring. While these specifications are technically mandatory, monitoring is weak, meaning if employers fail to meet the requirements there are no specific consequences.

But a breastfeeding space alone is not enough. In many jobs, mothers cannot leave their tasks during working hours, even if there is a lactation room.

Supportive employers need to regulate time and flexibility to breastfeed and express breastmilk, including providing flexible working arrangements and paid breastfeeding breaks during working hours. Supportive attitudes from co-workers and managers are also important.

Suitable staff training on breastfeeding and policies supporting mothers, such as providing time and facility to express breastmilk in work hours, are crucial. Training on how to support co-worker can include anything from basic information breastfeeding, to what to say (or not say) with a breastfeeding co-worker.

Access to supportive childcare is another issue globally.

For those families who can access childcare, childcare centres can also help by:

encouraging and accommodating mothers to visit for breastfeeding
having written policies supporting breastfeeding
providing parents with resources on breastfeeding
and referring parents to community resources for breastfeeding support.

Practical ways to support more families

The Australian Breastfeeding Association has an accreditation program that helps workplaces to be breastfeeding-friendly. Workplace policies, including adequate time and space for pumping, are positively associated with longer breastfeeding duration.

The program assesses workplaces for three aspects: time, space and supportive culture. This means, workplaces are encouraged to provide a special space and time for breastfeeding and breast pumping in a supportive culture and flexible working hours.

Mothers should consider to prepare how to align breastfeeding with work early – during pregnancy. Start by discussing your breastfeeding goals with healthcare professionals and finding a baby-friendly hospital.

Discuss your breastfeeding plan with your supervisor at work during your pregnancy, including finding out your maternity leave (paid and unpaid) entitlements. Also consider childcare arrangements that will work best for you with breastfeeding.

For further information and support, you can find resources from local breastfeeding support groups, such as the Indonesian Breastfeeding Mothers Association and Australian Breastfeeding Association.

Julie P. Smith is a qualified breastfeeding counselor and honorary member of the Australian Breastfeeding Association.

Andini Pramono dan Liana Leach tidak bekerja, menjadi konsultan, memiliki saham, atau menerima dana dari perusahaan atau organisasi mana pun yang akan mengambil untung dari artikel ini, dan telah mengungkapkan bahwa ia tidak memiliki afiliasi selain yang telah disebut di atas.

– ref. Difficult work arrangements force many women to stop breastfeeding early. Here’s how to prevent this – https://theconversation.com/difficult-work-arrangements-force-many-women-to-stop-breastfeeding-early-heres-how-to-prevent-this-211831

July 5, 2025

We discovered Raja Ampat’s reef manta rays prefer staying close to home – which could help us save more of them

Source: The Conversation – Indonesia – By Edy Setyawan, Marine Ecologist, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

The reef manta ray (Mobula alfredi) is a tough swimmer. They can travel hundreds of kilometres to feed themselves. The longest recorded movement for an individual reef manta ray was 1,150km, observed in eastern Australia.

But even though they are able to swim long distances, our study on reef manta rays in Raja Ampat, Southwest Papua, discovered they are more likely to swim short distances. They appear to prefer staying close to their local habitats, strengthening their social bonds and forming distinct populations.

Our research – involving researchers from Indonesia, New Zealand and Australia and published in the Royal Society Open Science journal in April – increases our understanding of this globally vulnerable species.

Policymakers can use our findings to enhance conservation efforts for the species in Raja Ampat waters, which currently are facing challenges due to fishing and tourism.

Why don’t reef manta rays roam far?

Our study found reef manta rays occupy three distinct habitats within Raja Ampat. As of February 2024, we recorded 1,250 individual manta rays around Waigeo Island’s extensive coral reef ecosystem in the northwest of Raja Ampat; 640 manta rays around the coral reef ecosystem in the southeast of Misool, southern Raja Ampat; and no more than 50 manta rays in the Ayau atoll ecosystem up north.

Within their own habitat, the manta rays tend to move around from one area to another, sticking to relatively short distances within 12 kilometres. They only occasionally make longer trips to similar areas in other habitats across Raja Ampat.

We believe there are a few reasons why reef manta rays in Raja Ampat do not often venture far. The first reason is the presence of natural barriers, such as deep waters – over 1,000 metres below sea level – between Ayau Atoll and Waigeo Island, as well as the sea between Misool and Kofiau, which is 800-900 metres deep.

Travelling through deep waters poses increased risks to reef manta rays due to potential encounters with natural predators, such as killer whales (Orcinus orca) and large sharks, which frequently inhabit deep open water.

The second reason is that each habitat is well-equipped with sufficient resources, such as food and cleaning stations, reducing the need for the reef manta rays to travel extensively.

Our previous research has identified dozens of feeding areas and cleaning stations in each habitat occupied by local populations of reef manta rays in Raja Ampat.

Raja Ampat’s ‘small town’ of reef manta rays

The habits of reef manta rays in Raja Ampat are gradually forming a unique population.

We have found that they do not form a single large population, but instead split into three local populations, creating a metapopulation. A metapopulation consists of several local populations of the same species, each occupying its own habitat but all situated within the same geographic region.

Think of a metapopulation as a small town, consisting of three hamlets. When each hamlet has enough food and water, the people prefer to stay in their own settlement. But they still live in the same town and occasionally visit each other.

We found this movement pattern based on our tracking process from 2016 to 2021 using acoustic telemetry, which functions similarly to office check-in systems.

In the tracking process, we combined this acoustic tracking with network analysis to map out the movement network of the manta rays, consisting of nodes and links. Nodes represent important areas for the manta rays, like cleaning stations and feeding areas, and links represent the movement between these key areas.

The metapopulation occurs because individual manta rays migrate between local populations. Based on our observation, the migrating manta rays usually head back to their original area — it is often seasonal – while those that spread out generally do not return.

This movement pattern means there is less mixing of individuals between local populations compared to within a single local population.

How to better protect reef manta rays

Some conservation policies and efforts have successfully increased the populations of reef manta rays in Raja Ampat.

But increased human activities such as fishing and tourism in eastern Indonesia still pose challenges. While manta rays are not directly caught or hunted, they often get entangled in fishing lines and nets, which may cause harm and sometimes death.

Additionally, with the increasing popularity of Raja Ampat as a top tourism destination, overcrowding and aggressive behavior by divers and snorkelers in Raja Ampat disrupt manta ray cleaning and feeding, which may affect their health and fitness.

Conservation strategies for reef manta rays require a more precise and targeted approach to effectively address these growing challenges.

The recognition of these rays as a metapopulation comprising three distinct local populations can inform a strategy shift in conservation management.

Recently, we have presented our research findings and recommendations to the authorities responsible for managing the Raja Ampat Marine Protected Area (MPA) network.

We recommend the MPA management authority in Raja Ampat create and implement three separate management units, each tailored to the specific needs of one of the local manta ray populations.

Separate units are necessary because each habitat has different demographics and is far apart, making it difficult to manage them as a single unit. This strategy is feasible because local rangers in each habitat already conduct regular patrols and monitoring.

We also see the urgent need to protect a critical area for various activities of reef manta rays in Raja Ampat called Eagle Rock, which is currently outside existing protected zones. Located in west of Waigeo, Eagle Rock could be effectively safeguarded by expanding the Raja Ampat MPA network to encompass this area.

Protecting Eagle Rock is crucial, not only because it serves as a vital migration corridor connecting significant areas and habitats within the South East Misool MPA, Dampier Strait MPA, Raja Ampat MPA, and West Waigeo MPA, but also due to the increased threat from nickel mining activities on Kawe Island.

MPAs prohibit industrial fishing, restrict tourism and all unsustainable activities — including mining — to minimise environmental impact.

Besides mapping out the movement patterns and networks of key areas and habitats of reef manta rays in Raja Ampat, our research lays the groundwork for future studies, including genetic analysis and satellite tracking.

These advanced techniques can offer deeper insights into the population structure, home range, and distribution of reef manta rays in the region, helping to enhance management and conservation strategies.

Edy Setyawan has received funding from the Manaaki New Zealand Scholarship – Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) New Zealand, and the WWF Russell E. Train Education for Nature Program (EFN), United States.

– ref. We discovered Raja Ampat’s reef manta rays prefer staying close to home – which could help us save more of them – https://theconversation.com/we-discovered-raja-ampats-reef-manta-rays-prefer-staying-close-to-home-which-could-help-us-save-more-of-them-230692

July 5, 2025

Why relying on technology to keep ASEAN’s coal plants running is risky

Source: The Conversation – Indonesia – By Lay Monica, Researcher, Center of Economic and Law Studies (CELIOS)

A recent ASEAN Centre for Energy (ACE) report emphasised that to contribute in tackling climate change, ASEAN countries don’t need to immediately phase out all of their coal fleet.

The report asserted that coal will continue to be an essential part of the energy transition. It also stated that by allowing ASEAN countries more time to improve electricity grids to accommodate more renewables could help smooth the transition to cleaner energy. Put the two together, and it strongly hinted that coal might be squeezed in to buy said time.

In order to reduce damage from coal, ACE urged ASEAN member states to use clean coal technologies in coal-fired power plants. It also recommended to use carbon capture and storage (CCS) or carbon capture, utilisation and storage (CCUS) to replace “old, inefficient, and unabatable coal plants”.

Interestingly, this is also a view promoted by the World Coal Association — now Future Coal – the international coal lobbying group.

At first glance, this plan seems promising. However, relying heavily on technology oversimplifies potential risks and assumes full delivery of promises without thorough risk assessments. In this article, we provide evidence that ACE’s chosen pathway is not as good as it seems and could face significant problems in the future.

False solution

The first “clean coal technology” proposed by ACE – termed “high efficiency, low emissions (HELE)” – is mostly supercritical coal power plant. This means it uses less coal while producing more energy. This is why they’re claimed to be more environmentally friendly than sub-critical or “regular” coal power plants.

But using supercritical technology doesn’t guarantee the emission problem is solved; it has varying degrees of success in reducing coal emissions.

For example, a 2019 Australian paper found supercritical coal power plants underperformed against regular power plants with higher breakdown rates, leading to frequent electricity price spikes during 2018-2019. This was a decade after the technology was first launched in 2007.

Failing to deliver steady electricity supplies would contradict ACE’s stated goal to prevent energy shortage and provide smoother transitions towards renewable energy.

Risks of carbon capture

Another technology that ACE advocates is carbon capture and storage (CCS), which captures carbon emissions from power plants and stores them underground.

However, CCS appears to replicate past project failures. Opponents of CCS often suggest its success rate is relatively small.

The industry claims the technology can capture 95% carbon from each project. Yet, the 2023 reports from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) found that no current project has consistently managed to capture more than 80% of carbon emissions. Some of them only succeeded in capturing 15% of carbon emissions.

Leakage from captured carbon underground is the other risk we might bear. This will have tremendous consequences not only by netting off the so-called mitigated emissions but also by contaminating groundwater and risking communities nearby.

According to carbon capture proponents, when done properly, the risk of leakage is minuscule. Even when it occurs, they claim it will not be catastrophic.

However, a big enough leak is still possible. The margin of safety is very narrow: even a mere 1% leakage every ten years could pose serious consequences in the long-run, mainly rises in temperature. Keeping the “safe level of leakage rate” requires a rigorous monitoring and supervision. Therefore, the risks could be higher in developing countries like Indonesia, which has chronic problems with regulatory governance.

Some other evidence suggests that CCS is not economically viable. One of the strongest arguments against CCS is probably the diminishing returns. As one of the leading experts in carbon capture claims:

The closer a CCS system gets to 100% efficiency, the harder and more expensive it becomes to capture additional carbon dioxide.

This implies potential future costs for bigger equipment, additional time, and additional energy for CCS to achieve that efficiency level.

More importantly, chasing increasingly expensive CCS technology merely prolongs the life of coal-fired power plants, which pose significant environmental risks. The same money and effort could be used to build more renewable energy infrastructure such as wind turbines or solar panels.

In addition to its potential high costs, captured carbon must be sold in the market – for various uses ranging for oil extraction to food preservation – to increase its economic viability.

However, other than CO₂ conversion to fuels, there is a strictly limited usage of CO₂. Commercial use of CO₂ is less than 1% of the global CO₂ emmissions from energy usage. On the other hand, converting CO₂ back to fuels requires carbon-free energy sources.

The conversion will also result in approximately 25-35% of energy losses. Although there have been more research on how to improve the efficiency of the process, CO₂ utilisation has yet to be scalable.

Why the half measure?

ACE must be wary of its reliance on technological solutions. Instead, the centre should consider a double-down on less-risky and less-capital-intensive solutions with many positive impacts, such as setting up community-based renewable energy, aggressive reforestation, or even better, significant halt of deforestation.

Community-based renewable energy offers to help people in energy-poor areas to build their own energy sources. Moreover, people living in close geographical proximity can share costs and resources to install and maintain off grid renewables, encouraging more widespread adoption of cleaner energy sources with minimum problem of land use.

On the other hand, in contrast to CCUS, aggressive reforestation does not require heavy machinery or specialised knowledge and skills to operate complex technology to achieve the same goals of storing emissions. Again, it is an established scientific fact that forests and soil currently store 30% of emissions. Unlike CCS that only stores emissions from sites where it is installed, forests and soil absorb atmospheric carbon emissions. Even well-planned city forests could have more capacity to effectively absorb CO2 than we thought.

ACE can also reconsider replacing the “old, inefficient, and unabatable coal plants” with renewables, such as solar and wind, especially those for non-industrial electricity facilities. Those electricity generation costs have been falling rapidly for years.

As most of the ASEAN member states are developing countries, they must carefully select the most suitable technologies to adopt. With limited fiscal capacity, rashly importing an advanced technology that will require substantial startup costs potentially becomes a costly effort, yielding limited benefits.

It is puzzling why we should replace our old coal plants with new ones. It is like when we are replacing our old mobile phone with a slightly better mobile phone – instead of jumping straight to a smartphone. Why the half-measure?

– ref. Why relying on technology to keep ASEAN’s coal plants running is risky – https://theconversation.com/why-relying-on-technology-to-keep-aseans-coal-plants-running-is-risky-234918

July 5, 2025

Is Mark Carney turning his back on climate action?

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Deborah de Lange, Associate Professor, Global Management Studies, Toronto Metropolitan University

The G7 summit in Alberta, hosted by Prime Minister Mark Carney, has ended with only passing mention of fighting climate change, including a statement on wildfires that is silent on the pressing need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

This is puzzling. Canadians didn’t opt for Conservative Pierre Poilievre, considered by some to be an oil and gas industry mouthpiece, in the last federal election. Instead, voters gave Carney’s Liberals a minority government.

Carney was the United Nations Special Envoy on Climate Action and Finance and was behind the UN-backed Net-Zero Banking Alliance, so some Canadians might have assumed he’d prioritize climate action if he won the election. Instead, Carney has described developing fossil fuel infrastructure as “pragmatic.”

But it’s unclear how a country grappling with abysmal air quality due to wildfires fuelled by global warming will benefit from further global fossil fuel development and its related emissions.

Warming rapidly

Canada is warming faster than most of the globe. Its leaders should be laser-focused on mitigating climate change by reducing fossil fuel use to the greatest extent possible, as soon as possible.

This decades-long understanding of how to approach climate action has been repeatedly explained by experts and is well known to governments globally. Canada’s prime minister was once one of those experts.

Carney now has a tremendous opportunity to lead by steering Canada in a clean direction.

Canada is at the forefront of clean technology, with numerous business opportunities emerging, particularly in areas like circular economy international trade. These opportunities not only support Canada’s commitment to meeting its Paris Agreement targets but also help expand and diversify its global trade.

Eco-industrial parks

Canada already has exemplar eco-industrial parks — co-operative businesses located on a common property that focus on reducing environmental impact through resource efficiency, waste reduction and sharing resources. Such industrial communities are in Halifax and in Delta, B.C. They represent significant investment opportunities.

Vacant urban land could be revitalized and existing industrial parks could boost their economic output and circular trade by building stronger partnerships to share resources, reduce waste and cut emissions.

Canada would benefit economically and environmentally by building on existing expertise and expanding successful sustainability strategies to achieve economic, environmental and social goals.

But by continuing to invest in fossil fuels, Canada misses out on opportunities to diversify trade and boost economic competitiveness.

The secret to China’s success

Real diversification makes Canada less vulnerable to economic shocks, like the ones caused by the tariffs imposed by United States President Donald Trump.

Fossil fuel reliance increases exposure to global economic risks, but shifting to cleaner products and services reduces climate risks and expands Canada’s global trade options. China’s economic rise is partly a result of this strategy.

That’s seemingly why Trump is so fixated on China. China today is a serious competitor to the U.S. after making smart trade and economic decisions and forging its own path, disregarding American pressure to remain a mere follower.

Investing in its huge Belt and Road Initiative, China also aligned itself with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. It’s building diplomatic bridges with many Belt and Road countries in southeast Asia as Trump’s America alienates its partners, pulling out of the Paris Agreement and cutting foreign aid.

As another one of America’s mistreated partners, Canada was poised to forge its own path under Carney. Instead, Carney is supporting American oil and gas by encouraging Canadian pipeline projects.

Clean innovation is the path forward

Canadian oil and gas is a concentrated industry controlled by a wealthy few, primarily Americans. More pipelines would therefore mean more sales of fossil fuels to other countries, with the beneficiaries mostly American.

Fossil fuel investments reduce Canada’s diversification because the resources used to further these projects could go elsewhere — toward clean diversification. With almost unlimited clean economy options across many sectors, clean diversification would broaden Canada’s economic and trade portfolios and reduce American control.

This is International Business 101, and would make the Canadian economy more competitive through innovation, while reducing the country’s climate risk.

California, often targeted by Trump for its policies, has been a leader in clean innovation, making its economy the envy of the world.

My recent research shows that clear, decisive choices like those made in California will be key to Canada’s future success. Canada must make choices aligned with goals — a core principle of strategic management.

My research also suggests Canada must restructure its energy industry to focus on renewable energy innovation while reducing fossil fuel reliance. Increased renewable energy innovation, as seen in patent numbers, leads to higher GDP.

Contrary to common beliefs, pollution taxes boost the economy in combination with clean innovation. But when the government supports both the fossil fuel industry and clean industries, it hinders Canada’s transition to a cleaner future.

Trapped by the fossil fuel industry?

Do Canadian taxpayers truly want to keep funding an outdated, polluting industry that benefits a wealthy few, or invest in clean industries that boost Canada’s economy, create better jobs and protect the environment? To differentiate Canada from the United States, it would make sense to choose the latter.

Carney should consider refraining from pushing for the fast-tracking of polluting projects. If he doesn’t, Canada will become more uncompetitive and vulnerable, trapped by the fossil fuel industry.

Carney’s support for pipelines may have stemmed from Alberta Premier Danielle Smith’s implicit support for Alberta sovereignty. She made veiled threats to Canada at a critical juncture, when Trump was making repeated assertions about annexing Canada.

Missed opportunities

Alberta didn’t vote for Carney. But Canadians who care about mitigating climate change did.

Banks that felt pressure to at least recognize sustainable finance during the Joe Biden administration joined Carney’s Net-Zero Banking Alliance.

But as soon as Trump came to power a second time and walked away from the Paris Agreement, many American banks abandoned the alliance. Canadian banks followed suit, and Carney remarkably missed another moment to show Canadian leadership by stopping their exit.

In fact, Carney seems to have abandoned his own organization to appease Trump as the president made multiple 51st state threats. The prime minister had the chance to differentiate Canada and demonstrate his own leadership. Instead, he seems to have easily turned his back on his principles under pressure from Trump.

Deborah de Lange receives funding from SSHRC and ESRC. She is affiliated with The Liberal Party of Canada and The Writers’ Union of Canada.

– ref. Is Mark Carney turning his back on climate action? – https://theconversation.com/is-mark-carney-turning-his-back-on-climate-action-258737

July 5, 2025

Misogyny has become a political strategy — here’s how the pandemic helped make it happen

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Brianna I. Wiens, Assistant Professor of Digital Media and Rhetoric, University of Waterloo

Since the COVID-19 pandemic, more overt forms of gendered hate have jumped from obscure internet forums into the mainstream, shaping culture and policy.

Social media doesn’t just reflect sexist, anti-feminist views; it helps to organize, amplify and normalize them.

Backlash against women and LGBTQ+ communities has become more overt, co-ordinated and is gaining political traction. As the United States rolls back reproductive rights and passes anti-LGBTQ+ laws, it is important to understand how digital culture fuels this regression.

While these shifts may seem distant, Canadian politics are not immune. Similar rhetoric has emerged in debates over education, gender identity, health care and so-called “parental rights.”

Our ongoing research maps how the pandemic accelerated the rise of online misogyny, especially through “manosphere” influencers and far-right rhetoric.

Drawing from more than 21,000 podcast episodes and digital artifacts, we are investigating how everyday online content works to erode women’s and LGBTQ+ rights. This rhetoric normalizes misogynistic, transphobic and homophobic views and repackages gender inequities as common sense.

How the pandemic fuelled digital misogyny

COVID-19 lockdowns set the stage for a surge in online radicalization. Isolated men and boys increasingly turned to social media for connection — spaces where manosphere personalities like English-American social media influencer Andrew Tate and American conservative political commentator Ben Shapiro gained momentum.

These figures blend anti-feminist messaging with broader pandemic-era anxieties, turning gender roles into moral and political battlegrounds.

Conservative influencers who once focused on vaccine skepticism began pivoting to anti-gender content. Steve Bannon’s podcast, for example, moved from pedalling public health disinformation to pushing narratives that feminism and LGBTQ+ rights are threats to western civilization.

Before the internet, radicalization usually required personal contact. Now, people can self-radicalize online, engaging with algorithm-driven content and communities that reinforce extremist beliefs, often without ever interacting with a recruiter. This shift coincided with a marked rise in reported online hate speech and offline hate crimes.

Misogyny as a mobilizing force

Meanwhile, women’s experiences during the pandemic — over half of whom are caregivers in Canada — involved increased labour at home and in front-line jobs. This left little time or energy for the organizational work necessary to combat the rising tides of sexism and misogyny.

Instead, public discourse began to increasingly valourize “tradwife” ideals and homemaking. This ensured traditional gender roles were brought back into the mainstream, not just as personal preferences, but as broader cultural expectations.

Though this misogyny appears to be fringe, it echoes mainstream policies that threaten reproductive health care, restrict gender expression and paint feminism as a threat to national stability.

Project 2025, the well-known policy platform from U.S. conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation, lays out an agenda to repeal reproductive rights, undermine LGBTQ+ protections and expand state control over gender and family life.

How misogynist narratives are normalized

These misogynist ideas are reinforced in popular culture. In May 2024, NFL player Harrison Butker used his commencement address at Benedictine College to tell women graduates that their true calling was to become wives and mothers.

Such rhetoric serves to re-establish patriarchal hierarchies by narrowing women’s roles to domestic life. But this isn’t about family values, it’s about power. Moves in the U.S. to restrict women’s reproductive autonomy and democratic access to vote make this abundantly clear.

While feminists pushed back, manosphere podcast influencers rushed to Butker’s defense. American white supremacist Nick Fuentes celebrated the speech as a manifesto, while Shapiro framed it as uncontroversial truth.

Our analysis of podcast episodes from Shapiro and Fuentes, among others, shows how misogynist and racist narratives are reinforced through repetition and emotional framing. In episodes focused on Butker’s commencement speech, there were significant concentrations of hate speech and misogyny in the episodes.

Both Shapiro and Fuentes positioned feminism as a threat and framed motherhood as women’s true vocation. Shapiro downplayed the backlash against Butker as liberal outrage through calculatedly mainstream language that used sanitized, “family values” language.

Fuentes promoted an extreme theocratic vision rooted in white Catholic nationalism. In Episode 1,330 of his America First podcast, he said, “I want women to be veiled. I don’t want them to be seen. I want them to be listening to their husbands.”

These talking points consistently align with Butker’s original sentiment and reflect broader political efforts to erode gender equity, as seen in political documents like Project 2025.

Other public figures like Texan megachurch pastor Joel Webbon went even further, advocating for the public execution of women who accuse men of sexual assault — a horrifying example that circulated in manosphere circles.

From the fringes to the mainstream

What’s happening online is not just cultural noise; it’s a co-ordinated effort by conservative political organizations, media outlets and right-wing influencers to shape gender norms, undermine equality and roll back decades of feminist progress.

When misogyny becomes a political strategy, it doesn’t stay confined to podcasts or memes. It seeps into everyday vernacular, court rulings and public policy, and it’s global in scope.

This isn’t new, either. In 2012, Australia’s then-prime minister, Julia Gillard, called out sexist language in parliament, including being labelled a “witch” and subjected to dismissive catcalls. Her speech highlighted the normalization of misogynistic vernacular in politics, but also triggered public backlash, including having anti-immigration remarks misattributed to her.

Similarly, in the lead-up to Germany’s 2021 federal election, Greens party candidate Annalena Baerbock faced co-ordinated disinformation and smear campaigns from foreign entities aimed at undermining her credibility and questioning her “maternal suitability” in the public eye. Digitally altered nude photos, fake protest images and disinformation graphics were circulated.

These campaigns reflect how misogyny is weaponized to influence elections, and how such campaigns can be a threat to national security.

A 2022 #MeToo litigation analysis showed how, despite increasing awareness around sexual assault and harassment, U.S. courts often use legal language that reinforces victim-blaming by placing victims in the grammatical subject position of sentences. For example, phrases like “the victim failed to resist” or “the victim did not report the incident immediately” shift focus onto the victim’s behaviour rather than the perpetrator’s actions.

These details continue to affect broader legal narratives and public acceptance.

Digital platforms are battlegrounds

Recognizing these connections is crucial. As far-right movements gain ground by repackaging ideas about gender as nostalgic “truth” or “tradition,” we need to recognize that digital platforms are not neutral, nostalgic spaces.

Rather, they are conversational battlegrounds where power is contested and jokes, tweets and speeches carry real political weight.

In the fight for gender equity, the internet is not just a mirror that reflects multiple realities. It’s a tool built by the tech industry that was never intended to democratize communication, labour or social roles. Right now, that tool is being weaponized to signal and reassert patriarchal control.

Brianna I. Wiens receives research funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.

Nick Ruest receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.

Shana MacDonald receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.

– ref. Misogyny has become a political strategy — here’s how the pandemic helped make it happen – https://theconversation.com/misogyny-has-become-a-political-strategy-heres-how-the-pandemic-helped-make-it-happen-256043

July 5, 2025

How discussion becomes discord: Three avoidable steps on the path to polarization

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Emma Lei Jing, Assistant Professor, People and Organizations, Neoma Business School

From tariffs and sovereignty to politics and conflict, there’s no shortage of controversial topics for us to grapple with. (Shutterstock)

Many of us have become immersed in debates with family about a contentious political issue, or found ourselves on the other side of a political divide than our friends. In these contentious times, it can be all too easy for courteous debate to devolve into polarized discord.

From tariffs and sovereignty to politics and conflict, there’s no shortage of controversial topics for us to grapple with. Canada just emerged from a divisive federal election, while in the United States, President Donald Trump signed a record 143 executive orders in his first 100 days in office, many of which touched on contentious topics.

We recently conducted a study on the debate around harm reduction. Here in Canada, supervised consumption sites is one issue that has generated support and opposition from community members, healthcare and government agencies, police, addiction services and many others. And it has led to some becoming entrenched in polarized positions.

Our research traced a path which led participants farther apart. Eventually, opposing camps became deeply divided and unwilling to engage with anyone holding different views, and it didn’t happen at random.

What went wrong, and what set opposing groups on the path to discord?

Signposts on the path to polarization

Through an in-depth qualitative case study of addiction services in Alberta, our analysis showed that when the topic of harm reduction was first introduced, arguments were based mostly on evidence and reason.

Harm reduction proponents pointed to the life-saving benefits of harm reduction and the inadequacies of traditional approaches, whereas opponents talked about the effectiveness of more traditional approaches.

We saw genuine, and sometimes successful, efforts to persuade those who disagreed to change their minds.

However, we identified a systematic progression from civil discourse to the formation of echo chambers. From that, we offer ways to steer conversations from developing into irreconcilable echo chambers.

a woman and man on a sofa argue — When emotions rise, people talk less about the pros and cons of an approach and more about what should be the right approach.
(Shutterstock)

Phase 1: Emotion deepens the divide

In the case of the harm reduction debate, an opioid crisis shook Alberta. A steep increase in overdose deaths heightened urgency and intensity around the debate and ushered in more emotionally charged arguments. Before long, a moral component developed in the debate.

When emotions rise, people talk less about the pros and cons of an approach and more about what should be the right approach.

Disagreements escalate as the discussion veers away from logic and arguments become more morally and emotionally charged. This heightened a sense of being right, and the opposite view being wrong, provides fertile ground for polarization.

This phase is where there is the greatest opportunity to change course. Be aware of the rising emotional energy. If the debate is getting heated, avoid framing arguments in terms of what’s right and wrong and stay focused on evidence and reason.

Phase 2: Heightened hostility

This is where things get personal.

As emotional rhetoric takes hold, participants pull farther apart and animosity grows. They start characterizing people on either side of the debate as morally right or wrong.

Just as we saw in phase one, a watershed event deepened the divide in Alberta. A newly elected provincial government took a distinctly different approach than the previous government, leaving advocates on one side feeling vindicated and their opponents shocked, dismayed and angry.

In phase two, the issue itself takes a back seat, and participants started blaming their opponents for making matters worse. There is less dialogue about an approach being right or wrong, and more about the people involved being right or wrong.

This is possibly the last chance to turn things around. At this point, we should be mindful about the importance of neutral and respectful language. One way to do this is by avoiding making things personal, such as blaming one another for a situation.

people in an office stand around a table arguing — Disagreements escalate as a discussion veers away from logic and arguments become more morally and emotionally charged.
(Shutterstock)

Phase 3: Disdain, disgust and self-isolation

By now, logical arguments have been abandoned, replaced with intense expressions of disgust and disdain for opponents. No longer interested in persuading the other side, the focus shifts to solidifying a position as both sides withdraw from debate and only engage with like-minded people.

In our study, this phase, like the previous phases, was brought on by a distinct event. A second provincial election ushered in an abrupt reversal in leadership and harm reduction policies. Any attempts to work together were abandoned and participants started entrenching themselves in self-constructed echo chambers.

In this most devastating and possibly irreparable phase, we noted that the rhetoric wasn’t even about what was right or wrong anymore. It was more about expressing disgust toward one another, leaving no room for facts, evidence or even different opinions, firmly establishing two entrenched sides.

Moral convictions and emotions play a critical role in escalating disagreements. The damage caused when civil arguments are subtly replaced with moral convictions and moral emotions can impact how we co-operate and interact with one another, even in our day-to-day conversations with families and friends.

In the context of addiction services in Alberta, there has now been an extended period of “cooling down” where both sides are taking a wait-and-see approach. We suggest that this is creating a climate where an engaged discussion with fact-based arguments can again be possible.

But even better would be a more proactive approach where participants of a debate recognize the warning signs and take actions early.

Trish Reay received funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council that supported this research.

Elizabeth Goodrick, Emma Lei Jing, and Jo-Louise Huq 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. How discussion becomes discord: Three avoidable steps on the path to polarization – https://theconversation.com/how-discussion-becomes-discord-three-avoidable-steps-on-the-path-to-polarization-257709

July 5, 2025

World Refugee Day: Prolonged refugee separation is harming families — and Canada’s economy

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Christina Clark-Kazak, Professor, Public and International Affairs, L’Université d’Ottawa/University of Ottawa

As World Refugee Day approaches on June 20, advocates and health experts are calling on the Canadian government to urgently address prolonged family separation for refugees. With wait times for family reunification now averaging more than four years, critics say the delays are causing irreparable harm to refugee families and imposing long-term costs on the health-care system and the Canadian economy.

The significant health, social and economic costs of prolonged family separation merit urgent action. These costs are borne by refugees and their families as well as municipal, provincial and federal governments.

People seeking refugee protection whose claims are accepted in Canada receive protected person status and are allowed to apply for permanent residence. They are permitted to include dependent children and spouses who are outside Canada on their permanent residence applications.

While accepted refugees and their family members are legally eligible for permanent residence in Canada, they must be admitted under the immigration levels for Protected Persons in Canada and Dependants Abroad. Because the number of people applying under these levels exceeds the number of spaces available, family separation currently lasts 50 months.

In 2024, the government of Canada announced major reductions in immigration levels starting in 2025. These reductions will further delay family reunification, prolonging refugees’ bureaucratic limbo.

Mental and physical health costs

Studies document the several mental health consequences of the separation of children from their parent(s), and of spouses from their partner. These challenges intensify as the duration of the separation increases.

Medical associations around the world say family separation is a traumatic event that can cause developmental regression and higher rates of unexplained illness in children.

This trauma may stem from the sense of abandonment that children experience while being separated from their parents. In one study from 2005, an interviewee said:

“It was hard at first … .The children thought that I had abandoned them. They considered me a traitor.”

Despite the time and efforts invested in long-distance relationships, family breakdown may result from prolonged family separation, necessitating counselling or child protection services.

These mental health consequences not only have human costs. They also represent a financial burden for the Canadian government through the Interim Federal Health Care (IFHC) Program. After protected people transition away from IFHC, provincial and territorial governments pay for health costs associated with family separation.

Some children may also require school-based interventions, mental health services and counselling, the costs of which are also borne by provincial governments.

Economic costs

Protected people separated from their families also pay to maintain two households: one in Canada and one overseas. In a 2019 study, a refugee said that “sending remittances was more expensive than if they lived together in Canada.”

Remittances not only represent a financial challenge to refugee families, they also result in indirect economic losses to Canada as funds leave the country instead of being invested in Canada.

Research shows that family separation also inhibits integration. The inability to find affordable child care in a single-parent household, for example, limits the ability to learn official languages, participate in community groups and find work opportunities.

For example, one woman from Afghanistan who had been waiting more than six years for reunification with her husband told researchers:

“In night I sometimes cannot sleep and I just walk and walk around the lobby of my apartment building. […] I can no longer take care of my children when they’re missing all the time their father. They need their father. Even sometimes my family asking ‘where is he?’ and other kids at my children’s schools are asking.”

This stress caused severe mental and physical health issues for this woman and her family, further limiting her ability to work.

These integration challenges mean fewer people can work to their full capacity, limiting participation in the Canadian economy. Delayed economic integration due to family separation results in lower tax revenues for all levels of the Canadian government.

Family unity provides refugees with the necessary support to manage the stresses of resettlement. Family reunification increases flexibility to adjust to a new country and culture without additional challenges.

As refugees and their families integrate, Canada benefits. They find work, pay taxes and contribute to their communities.

An easy administrative fix

The United Nations declared June 20 to be World Refugee Day almost 25 years ago. Although it’s just one day, it reminds us to honour refugees from around the world.

It is a good time for the Canadian government to work towards issuing temporary visas to eligible family members, allowing them to live in Canada while they await permanent residence.

The right to family unity is protected by international law. Canada’s reputation as a leader in refugee protection is at risk if family reunification continues to be delayed.

The social, health and economic costs of family separation are both inhumane and unnecessary.

Chloé Bissonnette, undergraduate student in Conflict Studies and Human Rights at the University of Ottawa, contributed to this article.

Christina Clark-Kazak receives funding from the Social Sciences Humanities and Research Council (SSHRC).

– ref. World Refugee Day: Prolonged refugee separation is harming families — and Canada’s economy – https://theconversation.com/world-refugee-day-prolonged-refugee-separation-is-harming-families-and-canadas-economy-258441