A florid symptom of global economic and social inequality

The wealthiest 1 per cent of the world’s population owned 50.1 per cent of all global household wealth in 2017 – that is they collectively held an est. US$140.28 trillion [Credit Suisse Global Wealth Databook 2017].

The world’s richest 500 people had a collective personal worth in excess of US$5.3 trillion at the end of that year – 3.77 percent of the wealth held by the top 1 per cent.

Bloomberg Billionaires Index as of Dec. 28, 2017:

The Bloomberg Billionaires Index is a daily ranking of the world’s richest people. Details about the calculations are provided in the net worth analysis on each billionaire’s profile page. The figures are updated at the close of every trading day in New York.

Billionaires ranked 14 to 500 with personal wealth ranging from $46.8B to $4.9B can be viewed here.

Australians on 2017 Top 500 Billionaires Index

#85 Gina Rinehart est. current worth $14.9B

#213 Harry Triguboff est. current worth $7.52B

#256 Ivan Glasenberg est. current worth $6.42B

#316 Anthony Pratt est. current worth $5.75B

#346 Frank Lowy est. current worth $5.44B

#480 James Packer est. current worth $4.22B

Ever wondered why you feel much hotter or colder than the temperature gauge indicates?

Australian Bureau of Meteorology, Thermal Comfort observations, January 2018:

We often use the air temperature as an indicator of how comfortable we will feel when involved in sports or other physical activities. However, the air temperature is only one factor in the assessment of thermal stress. In climates where other important factors, principally humidity, can vary widely from day to day, we need more than just the temperature for a more realistic assessment of comfort. However it is useful to be able to condense all the extra effects into a single number and use it in a similar way to the way we used the temperature. The Wet Bulb Globe Temperature (WBGT) and the Apparent Temperature are indices which attempt to do this….

Human thermal comfort depends on environmental and personal factors. The four environmental factors are airflow (wind), air temperature, air humidity, and radiation from the sun and nearby hot surfaces. The personal factors are the clothing being worn and the person's level of physical activity. Thermal sensation is also significantly affected by acclimatisation/adaptation: people living in hot climates have been shown to be comfortable at higher temperatures than those living in cooler climates.

In hotter conditions the body must shed heat to maintain thermal equilibrium. The cooling effect of evaporation of sweat from the skin becomes an important factor. The efficiency of this cooling depends on the humidity of the air. A high humidity reduces the effectiveness of evaporative cooling significantly. The amount of clothing will also affect this cooling efficiency due to its restriction of the air flow over the skin. Fabrics with low vapour permeability (those that don't "breathe") will increase the humidity of air near the skin.

In colder conditions, the body must either reduce heat loss (eg by taking shelter from the wind) or increase heat production, for example, by greater physical activity. In these conditions evaporation and air humidity are relatively unimportant factors. The cooling of the exposed parts of the body by the wind now becomes the most important external factor affecting thermal balance.

The effect of radiation is important under all temperature conditions. Excess radiation always acts to increase the heat load on a person. This can be of assistance under cold conditions, but under hot conditions it's an extra heat load that must be shed.

Of the four environmental factors, wind and radiation are very much influenced by the immediate surroundings. For example, wind speed is reduced by the sheltering effect of belts of trees and solar radiation is affected by short term localised phenomena such as cloudiness. If these factors are to be used as inputs, they are best measured on location, as values can vary significantly over relatively short distances. The remaining two factors (temperature and humidity) are less spatially variable and can be used to give an indication of the general comfort level of a region.

In order to make comparisons between areas, it is convenient to combine the effect of temperature and humidity into one index. This does not mean we can ignore the other environmental and non-environmental factors, but adjustments to the index value, either up or down, can be made to take them into account.

Most people use the temperature alone to provide some guide to the level of comfort. Generally this is quite reasonable because humidity doesn't often vary a lot, particularly in the tropics. However people moving from a less humid to more humid environment will immediately notice the effect of the greater humidity. In many sub-tropical regions of Australia the humidity is usually quite low, but occasionally can become quite high, again reducing comfort to those people not acclimatised.

The Wet Bulb Globe Temperature (WBGT) and Apparent Temperature (AT) are just two methods of combining temperature and humidity into a single number. In fact the real WBGT is also affected by wind and radiation, but the WBGT provided by the Bureau is only an approximation, which ignores variations of wind and radiation (light winds and fairly sunny conditions assumed). The AT can also be extended to take wind and solar radiation into account as well, though generally this is not done. In the AT values provided by the Bureau, wind is taken into account, but not solar radiation. Other indices such as the Physiologically Equivalent Temperature (PET) and the Predicted Mean Vote (PMV) can also be used.

An example of how this works on the ground:

To check thermal stress in your area on any given day go to Thermal Comfort observations index for each State or go directly to Thermal Comfort observations in each State NSW & ACT, Vic, Qld, WA, SA, Tas, NT.

January 2018: are environmental vandals in the Liberal & National parties trying to force gasfield expansions down the throats of reluctant communities?

To be eligible your project must bring new gas flow to domestic gas consumers in target markets by 30 June 2020 and can include:

*deployment of new technologies or techniques to lift existing and new well productivity

*the opening of new gas pilot and/or production or exploration wells that are either in proximity to existing gas infrastructure or can demonstrate a path to market

*better utilisation of existing or the establishment of new gas processing, storage and transport facilities

*design, construction and engineering activities directly related to bringing forward new gas supply.

[Gas Acceleration Program, Eligibility Criteria]

Liberal Senator for Queensland and Minister for Resources and Northern Australia Matt Canavan, media release, 20 December 2017:

Gas Acceleration Program Grant Guidelines Released

The Australian Government’s $26 million Gas Acceleration Program (GAP) will open to applications early in the new year, to further strengthen the East Coast gas market.

Guidelines for the GAP were released today, ahead of grant applications opening in January 2018.

The GAP is a significant component of the Australian Government’s $90 million investment in gas security, reliability and affordability for the Australian people.

Minister for Resources and Northern Australia Matt Canavan said the program aimed to deliver new gas supply to domestic users in markets affected by tight supply by fast-tracking new project developments.

“The GAP will offer up to $6 million to gas projects that have substantiated prospects of bringing significant new gas volumes to market by mid-2020,” Minister Canavan said.

“This funding can be used to develop new technologies or techniques to boost well productivity, for new production or exploration near existing infrastructure.  It can also be used to build new gas processing, storage and transport facilities, or for other activities that will bring forward new gas supply.

“This program is implementing our long-term goal to increase the domestic gas supply, boost competition, and improve transparency and efficiency of the gas market supply chain.

“Australian consumers need to be assured that we can access our plentiful gas resources in a responsible way. Bringing more gas to market will reduce upward pressure on gas prices and help to create Australian jobs and support investment in regional Australia.”

Applications to the GAP will be open between 15 January and 13 February 2018.

For more information, visit www.business.gov.au/gap

Media contact: Minister Canavan's office 02 6277 7180

Minister for Resources and Northern Australia Matt Canavan quoted in The Land, 21 December 2017:

“This funding can be used to develop new technologies or techniques to boost well productivity, for new production or exploration near existing infrastructure. It can also be used to build new gas processing, storage and transport facilities, or for other activities that will bring forward new gas supply.”

So where does Australia stand on climate change at the start of 2018?

On 21 December 2017 IPSOS Social Research Institute released its 2017 Climate Change Report which provides the findings the company’s annual climate change research.

It would appear that the Australian general public is not walking away from a belief that climate change is real, that it is affecting our lives and action on the part of government is required.

IPSOS, Climate Change Report 2017, excerpts:

Priorities of environmental action

Once again, renewable energy is the top environmental issue Australians would act on if they were in charge of decision-making. More than half (56%) identify renewable energy as an issue they would choose to address. The majority of Australians have identified renewable energy as an issue for action every year since surveying began in 2007.

Compared with 2016, there has been no movement in the top 6 issues of importance. Water and river Heath (49%) came in at number two. This is its highest rating for action since 2012 (when it was 52).

In third place in 2017 is illegal waste dumping (46%), followed by deforestation (45%), sustainability and climate change (both 43%).

In 2016 we noted that climate change had hit its highest rating since 2008 (when 47% believed it to be a top priority for action), and it retains that sixth place with more than two in five Australians once again identifying it as an issue for action.

Australians in regional areas are more likely to identify renewable energy as an issue for action compared with their counterparts in capital cities (62% ‘rest of Australia’ vs. 53% capital city residents). The same pattern is observed for water and river health (58% vs. 44%) and deforestation (51% vs. 42%).

The role of human activity in climate change

The past few years have seen a growing consensus in the political sphere that climate change is caused by human-driven processes. In the face of this change, Australians’ views of the causes of climate change have moved little in the past decade. This stasis has continued in 2017.

Only 3% of Australians think there is no such thing as climate change. Around one-in-ten (12%) believe climate change is caused entirely or mostly by natural processes. Two-in-five (42%) believe that human activity is mainly or entirely responsible for climate change and 38% believe that climate change is caused partly by humans and partly by natural processes.

Half of Australians aged under 50 years of age believe that climate change is mostly or entirely caused by human activity (50%) compared with one-third of those aged 50 and above (31%).

Voting intention, like age, is linked to public opinion on the role of human activity in climate change. Liberal voters and One Nation voters are less likely to think that climate change was mostly or entirely caused by human activity (34% and 25% respectively). Whereas, Labor voters and Greens voters are more likely to identify human activity as mostly or entirely causing climate change (50% and 69% respectively). There are no differences by geography, but those with a university degree are also more likely to say human activities are entirely or mainly responsible (51%).....

Climate change is a pressing issue with serious consequences

Most Australians think that climate change is already underway (62% either strongly or somewhat agree). More than half (54%) agree that it poses a serious threat to our way of life over the next 25 years. This increases to 64% agreement when considering the next 100 years…….

Who’s responsible for action on climate change, and who’s doing a good job?

….In 2017, Australians consider the international community to be performing best of the parties tested. More than one in five (22%) feel that the performance of the international community is very or fairly good (compared with 19% in 2016).

This means the international community overtakes State Governments in relation to perceived performance on climate change. In 2016, 20% said State Governments. This year, State Governments and the Federal Government sit in second place and 18% rated both these levels of government as very or fairly good. As in 2016, business and industry was considered the lowest performer (15% rated their performance as good).

Although business and industry is regarded as being the poorest performer of the groups tested, combined with such a low expectation of leading action on climate change, arguably this poor perception of performance is not as relevant as it is for the Federal Government (which carries the greatest weight of responsibility).

Liberal voters are far more complimentary about the current Federal Government’s performance on action on climate change (31% gave a good rating compared with 16% of Labor voters and 10% of Greens voters).

Who should be mainly responsible for action on climate change?

Participants were asked to rate the performance of the Federal Government, the international community, State Governments and business. It is apparent that Australians do not believe that any of these parties are performing particularly well on climate action.

Is lying now the default position in the public sphere?

Bald-faced lying and doing it very badly now appears so commonplace in the public sphere that one has to wonder if it is the new base line for politicians, diplomats and corporations.

Here is yet another American example….

Just perfect.
Dutch journalist to new US Ambassador: you said there were 'no go zones' in Netherlands, where are they?
Ambassador: That's fake news, I didn't say that
Journalist: We can show you that clip now.
Ambassador: Err 拉 pic.twitter.com/8ohIOzmYAc

— Sunny Hundal (@sunny_hundal) December 22, 2017

Via @sunny_hundal

Note: Once this clip went viral US ambassador to the Netherlands Pete Hoekstra issued the standard short, facile apology of a public figure caught uttering falsehoods.

Trump starts the New Year with the United Nation's thumbing its nose at his threats

Despite US President Donald Trump’s threats to pull foreign aid from countries which didn’t vote as he directed, seventy-four per cent of national representatives participating in the UN General Assembly  Emergency Session ‘Status of Jerusalem’ vote cast their ballots against the Trump Regime’s declaration of Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Israel.

United Nations News Centre, 21 December 2017:

General Assembly demands all States comply with UN resolutions regarding status of Jerusalem

Panels in the General Assembly Hall showing the final count for the resolution on ‘the status of Jerusalem, during the resumed 10th Emergency Special Session on Illegal Israeli actions in Occupied East Jerusalem and the rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territory. UN Photo/Manuel Elias

21 December 2017 – By an overwhelming majority, Member States in the United Nations General Assembly on Thursday “demanded” that all countries comply with Security Council resolutions regarding the status of Jerusalem, following an earlier decision by the United States to recognize the Holy City as the capital of Israel.

Through a resolution adopted by a recorded vote of 128 in favour to nine against (Guatemala, Honduras, Israel, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Togo, United States), with 35 abstentions, the 193-member Assembly expressed “deep regret” over recent decisions concerning the status of Jerusalem and stressed that the Holy City “is a final status issue to be resolved through negotiations in line with relevant UN resolutions.”

Action in the Assembly today follows a failed attempt by the Security Council on Monday adopt a similar text reflecting regret among the body’s members about “recent decisions regarding the status of Jerusalem,” with a veto from the United States, a permanent member of the Council.

Ahead of that failed resolution, Nickolay Mladenov, Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process, told the Security Council that the security situation in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory had become more tense in the wake of US President Donald Trump's decision on 6 December to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

Subsequently, Yemen and Turkey, in their respective capacities as Chair of the Arab Group and the Chair of the Summit of the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation, requested the President of the General Assembly to “urgently resume’ the tenth emergency special session of the General Assembly in accordance with the so-named ‘Uniting for peace’ procedure.

This procedure, under Assembly resolution 377 (1950), is a pathway around a Security Council veto. By it, the Assembly can call an emergency special session to consider a matter “with a view to making appropriate recommendations to members for collective measures,” if the Security Council fails to act or if there is lack of unanimity among the Council’s permanent members, China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, and the United States.

Since the tenth such meeting, the Assembly has temporarily adjourned the emergency special session and authorized “the President of the General Assembly […] to resume its meeting upon request from Member States,” allowing for speedy consideration by the body of urgent issues.

The most recent resumed emergency session was in 2009 when the Assembly called a meeting on East Jerusalem and the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

Resolutions in the Assembly are non-binding and do not carry the force of international law as do measures agreed in the Security Council.

Find out more about the Assembly’s emergency special sessions and resolution 377 (1950) here

Today’s resolution demanded that “all States comply with Security Council resolutions regarding the Holy City of Jerusalem, and not recognize any actions or measures contrary to those resolutions.”

The General Assembly further affirmed that “any decisions and actions which purport to have altered the character, status or demographic composition of the Holy City of Jerusalem have no legal effect, are null and void and must be rescinded in compliance with relevant resolutions of the Security Council.”

In that regard the Assembly also called upon all States to refrain from the establishment of diplomatic missions in the Holy City of Jerusalem, pursuant to Security Council resolution 478 adopted in 1980.

Reiterating its call for the reversal of the negative trends that endanger the two-State solution, the Assembly urged greater international and regional efforts and support aimed at achieving, without delay, a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East.

The text of the ‘Status of Jerusalem’ resolution include the undertaking; to ask nations not to establish diplomatic missions in the historic city of Jerusalem, as delegates warned that the recent decision by the United States to do so risked igniting a religious war across the already turbulent Middle East and even beyond.

Joining historic 'medical' research which looked at the incidence of legume anorexia amongst children comes a ground-breaking article 'The science behind "man flu"'

Following on the very successful research behind The Etiology and Treatment of Childhood first published sometime last century comes the British Medical Journal’s release of more recent research articulated in The science behind “man flu” (11 December 2017).

In which women find out that:

The concept of man flu, as commonly defined, is potentially unjust. Men may not be exaggerating symptoms but have weaker immune responses to viral respiratory viruses, leading to greater morbidity and mortality than seen in women. There are benefits to energy conservation when ill. Lying on the couch, not getting out of bed, or receiving assistance with activities of daily living could also be evolutionarily behaviours that protect against predators. Perhaps now is the time for male friendly spaces, equipped with enormous televisions and reclining chairs, to be set up where men can recover from the debilitating effects of man flu in safety and comfort.

Ah, the hardships of the male condition are manifold.