Sunday, 30 March 2025

Big cars are increasing Australia’s emission and fuel bills – but what are the alternatives for families?

Extract from The Guardian 

Transport

Nine of the top 10 most purchased cars are large, but some smaller models still have plenty of room and tread lighter on the environment.

Sun 30 Mar 2025 06.01 AEDT

If you’re chasing a car that will transport big families in luxury, tow the boat, be safe for all road users and tread lightly on the environment, then stop looking. The perfect car doesn’t exist – and it never will.

Cars are a compromise, no matter what part of the market you’re shopping in.

Utes do a great job hauling heavy loads and carrying bulky things, but they’re short on covered storage and can be cumbersome to drive. Supercars are fast and slick through corners but impractical and expensive. Somewhere in the middle are cars most Aussies buy.

With that in mind, here are some of the cars that straddle the middle ground nicely.

Small SUVs

SUVs don’t have to be big and brash, as the Hyundai Kona proves. One of several small SUVs that aren’t particularly small, it can easily cater for two-child families. And with the underpinnings of a small hatchback (it’s often a grey area between the two), there is familiarity for those used to city cars. Buyers can choose between petrol, hybrid or electric propulsion; from a value perspective, the hybrid is the pick. A nearly flat floor means those in the back aren’t short-changed on legroom, and the Kona comes packed with tech to match its modern exterior.

The Toyota Corolla Cross is also an excellent choice with a terrific hybrid system. While the base GX misses out on some gear, splash out on the GXL, and you’ll get a nicer machine.

SUV driving over smaller cars illustration
‘You have unmet needs’: the psychology behind Australia’s love affair with big cars
Read more

People movers

People movers tend to be big and bulky, but the Kia Carnival is cleverer than your average family bus. Many people movers are essentially commercial vans with extra seats, but the Carnival was designed with only people in mind. And it can seat up to eight, one more than most large SUVs. Where SUVs with three rows of seats rarely have room for the luggage of a full load of passengers, the Carnival’s deep boot space makes full-house airport runs a possibility. A recently introduced hybrid system keeps fuel bills low and sets the basis for a people mover that’s good to drive.

The key with people movers, of course, is ensuring you are regularly filling most seats. If you’re driving it solo, all that extra metal is dead weight.

Small EVs

If you want a small hatch, all-electric options are now cheaper than rivals from Toyota and Mazda.

At less than $35,000 drive-away, the MG4 represents solid value, especially once you factor in a 10-year warranty. Dedicated EV architecture maximises interior space. With a single motor driving the rear wheels, it also drives with pizazz. The 350km of claimed range (think more like 310km in the real world) will limit its weekend-away usefulness, but for those with home charging, it’s a good choice.

The BYD Dolphin is cheaper again and gets more equipment, as well as a deceptively spacious interior EVs do so well. It’s not as sharp to drive and not particularly powerful, but the accessible pulling power and near-instant zip of an electric motor make it a handy around-town companion.

illustration showing a large car as a money box
Road hogs: what is Australia’s love of big cars costing us all?
Read more

Electric SUVs

Electric cars are often bigger on the inside than they appear on the outside.

The Tesla Model Y is a good example: it’s a mid-sized SUV with five seats and looks after those occupants well, with generous leg and headroom. Plus, there are 854 litres of luggage space behind the back seats, some of it beneath the floor. That’s loads more than most petrol-powered rivals (the Toyota RAV4 has a 580 litre boot) even without the 117 litre of under bonnet storage. An updated model that hits the road soon will also get a bonnet that pops up in an impact to protect pedestrians.

If you want something a little less spaceship but with plenty of EV goodness, the Kia EV5 is a good place to start.

And if you’re chasing some luxury and lashings of tech, the Polestar 4 is a great option.

Mid-sized SUVs

If you want a large SUV that does its best work around town but can still tackle light duty tracks, the Hyundai Santa Fe is a good option. At its core is a 1.6-litre four-cylinder hybrid system that uses a claimed average of 5.6 litres per 100km, less than some small cars. The cabin is brimming with USB ports and cup holders, and there’s a rugged aesthetic that helps it stand out. It’s also comfortable and cruisy. Independent Australasian New Car Assessment Program crash testing gives it five stars, but the head protection for cyclists and pedestrians is only 12.14 out of 18.

Alternatively, the all-electric BMW iX3 is sharp buying, just sliding in under the luxury car tax threshold, which means it can leverage the fringe benefits tax exemption on EVs.

Posted by at No comments:

Brooks and Marcus on political reaction to Trump officials using app to discuss Yemen plan.

 

New York Times columnist David Brooks and columnist Ruth Marcus join Geoff Bennett to discuss the week in politics, including Trump officials sharing sensitive information on a commercial app, the reaction to the revelation, the state of U.S. foreign relations and President Trump’s bid for Greenland.

Read the Full Transcript

Notice: Transcripts are machine and human generated and lightly edited for accuracy. They may contain errors.

  • Geoff Bennett:

    From Trump officials sharing sensitive information a commercial app to Donald Trump's bid for Greenland, it's time now for Brooks and Marcus. That's New York Times columnist David Brooks, and Ruth Marcus, a longtime columnist formerly of The Washington Post. Jonathan Capehart is away this evening.

    It's great to have you both here.

    Lots of news to discuss this week, starting, David, of course, with the controversy over those secret details of pending military strikes in Yemen that were posted on that unsecured group chat that mistakenly included our friend journalist Jeffrey Goldberg.

    We have had a couple of days now to — more than a couple, a few days now, to digest this. What stands out to you as the consequences?

  • David Brooks:

    Yes, I have spiraled.

    When I first told Geoff's story, I just thought mind-boggling incompetence, like something I have never seen before. And it just seemed like — and I have been saying for weeks, the Democrats should talk about nothing but Trump incompetence, incompetence, incompetence.

    But then it got uglier. I was at the gym, believe it or not, when I was — I watched Pete Hegseth come off an airplane and make his first comment, attacking Geoff. And — but just mostly it was an aggressive form of bald-face lying that is — tells you a lot about a guy.

    It was obvious they were caught with a screw-up. A normal human being, I really think 99 percent of human beings said, we messed up. We messed up. We're going to fix this. We messed up.

    I think — but not the Trump administration. They went on a vicious attack of character assassination, of ad hominem, of all the ugliest things it's possible to dredge up, and that was their universal instinct. And so I found it incredibly ugly as the story went on.

  • Geoff Bennett:

    Ruth, what about that? I mean, it's characteristic of a White House that never admits wrongdoing. What do you make of the way that they have answered this national security scandal with a fiercely political argument?

  • Ruth Marcus, Columnist:

    Well, surprise. I think this is a really — I thought — when this first broke, I thought this is an incredible screw-up and a great story.

    And, by the way, when he came to The Washington Post as a summer intern, I was Jeffrey Goldberg's big buddy, professional partner, so I would like to say, I get all the credit or the blame for whoever he turned out to be.

    (Laughter)

  • Ruth Marcus:

    But the I think this is one of these sticky moments for an administration.

    We saw it when Bush said, "Heck of a job, Brownie," when we all knew that they were messing up with Katrina. We all saw it when the Biden administration messed up the exit from Afghanistan. This is one of those moments that's actually bigger than the moment itself, because, first of all, anybody can understand, anybody at the gym understands you do not treat operational details in this insecure way.

    They can draw distinctions all they want about whether information was classified or not. Everybody knows this was bungled. Number two, it just illustrates what we also all knew, those of us who are honest with ourselves, which is this crew — and I will start with the FOX News host who was tapped to be the defense secretary — is not ready for prime time.

    If they were ready for prime time, they would not be discussing secrets like this on an open channel. And, finally, the counterpunching. You can get away with a lot. We have all made mistakes, and some of us who've over the years have learned even to apologize for them.

    If they had just said, we messed up and moved on, I think they would have served themselves better than doing what they have done now, which is to attack Jeffrey Goldberg, who was a — the only responsible participant in this whole event.

    And people don't — are not going to treat this — this is going to be remembered as a bad moment for this administration.

  • Geoff Bennett:

    And, David, there's also the substance of what was said on this chat. I mean, the Trump administration has signaled that the transatlantic alliance, as we know it, is over, at least as compared to the last 80 years of history.

    But, in private, on this chat, what we saw from J.D. Vance, he says, I just hate bailing Europe out again. The secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth, described Europe as freeloading in the chat. He calls the continent pathetic.

    What does that lay bare, and what are the implications of that?

  • David Brooks:

    Yes, this is our level of foreign policy thinking, like, oh, we don't like those guys.

    Basically, you have got an administration and these guys, down to the ground, they divide everything into hard and soft. And they think Putin is hard and Europe is soft. They think universities are soft and they're hard. And so, are you masculine or not? And they code Europe as soft, which is ridiculous. Europe is a diverse country with a lot of hard people and soft people.

    But this is part of a — not only one screw-up. We have had two months or 50 days, wherever we are, of a comprehensive weakening of our security apparatus. They're diverting FBI agents away from terrorism. They're firing people who are now being recruited, I have read, by Chinese and Russian agents to see if — the former U.S. employees.

    They're gutting the national — the nuclear security Agency. They're gutting the security clearances. So this is a comprehensive assault that will make America less safe.

  • Geoff Bennett:

    Meantime, let's talk about Greenland, because, as we reported earlier this evening, the vice president, he led a delegation there, and it was reflective of President Trump's desire to control this semiautonomous Danish territory.

    What do you make of President Trump threatening territorial expansion in the Western Hemisphere, trying to annex Greenland? How does that contrast with his America first ideology and his rhetoric?

  • Ruth Marcus:

    America only. It's not just America first. It's America only. It's the toddler who says, I see that, I want it, give it to me. It could be Greenland. It could be Canada. It could be the Panama Canal back.

    Whatever he wants, he's going to get, as if there isn't what we thought was an international rules-based order. And just to amplify what David was saying, though I do want to say feminine is not necessarily bad.

    (Crosstalk)

  • David Brooks:

    Yes. Yes. I was trying to talk in their voice, yes.

  • Ruth Marcus:

    I will take it…

  • David Brooks:

    Yes. OK. Ruth is going to beat me up after this.

    (Laughter)

  • Ruth Marcus:

    I am not going to beat you up, because that would be not feminine of me.

    (Laughter)

  • Ruth Marcus:

    But we are — I used to ask during the first Trump administration when I would see foreign policy experts about how reparable the damage was.

    And I thought — and they would say it was irreparable, and I would say, well maybe we can fix it. And I thought President Biden did a very good job of knitting back together alliances that had been terribly frayed. When I see the way President Trump is talking about Greenland, I must have it, or the way he's talking about, he and others are talking about European allies, they're freeloaders, or the way he talks about the 51st state, I think we are not going to be able to put this broken system back together once he's gone.

    And I think that is a very scary moment.

  • Geoff Bennett:

    Do you see a through line here? I mean, if you look at his America first rhetoric, and now this expansionist rhetoric, make sense of it for us.

  • David Brooks:

    Yes, some of it is I think what Ruth said. It's just a kid wanting things.

    But if there's a through line, I guess he has some thing in his head — well, first he's delusional if he thinks the Greenlanders want to be Americans. And if some big — Donald Trump comes and say, I want you to join our country, who — what country on Earth is going to say, oh, OK, we will do that?

    But the through line, if I can think of it, is, he really likes the late 19th century. And this was an era of American — of ugly American imperialism. And so I think he — we had territorial expansion, Philippines and all over — all this stuff. And it was not a good moment in American history. But he somehow wants to do it all over again.

    And so he has this thing for McKinley. But if you go back to, Spanish-Mexican war, like you — all this stuff was just a dark moment. And I think it's what he likes.

  • Ruth Marcus:

    The world might have worked that way then. It does not work that way now. It needs to work through a lot — if it's going to work, it needs to work through alliances of people who treat their allies with respect. And they can save the masculinity for their enemies.

    (Laughter)

  • Geoff Bennett:

    Lastly, Ruth, it's great to have you here. After an impressive and impactful career at The Washington Post, you decided to step down. Help us understand why.

  • Ruth Marcus:

    Well, first, I want to say that I'm really grateful to be here at the "News Hour."

    And the reason is, after I decided to resign after 40 days, six months and six days, but who's counting?

  • Geoff Bennett:

    Forty years.

  • David Brooks:

    Forty years.

  • Ruth Marcus:

    Forty years. Sorry, 40 years, six — yes, thank you.

    I had, among other comments, a lot of people from the — who are viewers of the "News Hour," saying, we hope we will see you there. So I'm very grateful that you're having me, even though I'm kind of professionally unhoused for the moment.

    (Laughter)

  • Ruth Marcus:

    I decided to — I had to resign because I could no longer tell my readers that I was able to write what I wanted about the things that I thought were most important to say.

    And what happened was, back in October, when Jeff Bezos, the owner of The Washington Post, decided not to run the already drafted endorsement of Kamala Harris and not to run presidential endorsements later, I disagreed with that decision and I wrote a column expressing my, I thought, polite disagreement with that decision. And it ran.

    When Jeff Bezos decided that he was going to shift that — the opinion section more broadly in a way to limit dissent, as David pointed out on this segment when Jonathan was here, I also wrote a column. And that column, I had to write it because it was what I believed. I had written the previous column. That column didn't run.

    And when that column didn't run, I knew that my time at The Post had come to an end because I could no longer write what I wanted to say.

  • Geoff Bennett:

    Well, we are glad to have you here.

  • Ruth Marcus:

    Thank you.

  • Geoff Bennett:

    Ruth Marcus, David Brooks, thanks so much. And have a great weekend.

  • David Brooks:

    You too.

  • Ruth Marcus:

    Thanks. You too.

Posted by at No comments:

Friday, 28 March 2025

Earth losing fresh water and may have hit irreversible tipping point due to climate change.

Extract from ABC News

By environment reporter Peter de Kruijff
Aerial view of cracked light brown clay with a bright green soy plant growing out of a crack in the middle.

A global drying trend has seen a loss of soil moisture in places like South America, Europe, Asia, central Africa and the United States. (Getty Images: Sebastian Lopez Brach/Bloomberg)

In short:

Earth may have hit a point of irreversible moisture loss in its soil as a result of climate change, according to a new study.

More than 2,614 gigatonnes of moisture was lost from 2000 to 2016.

What's next?

Further research is needed to work out how much water use in agriculture contributes to overall water depletion.

The Earth is getting dryer and may have hit a tipping point for how much water is stored in soil because of climate change.

So great is the decline in soil moisture that it has outpaced Greenland's melting ice sheets in its contribution to sea level rise and changes to the wobble in Earth's rotation.

That's according to a new study in the journal Science, which suggests more than 2,614 gigatonnes of moisture was lost from our planet between 2000 to 2016.

It's a trend that scientists think led to a major shift in land-based water storage — sources like groundwater, rivers, lakes, soil moisture and ice — from 1992.

The researchers estimated between 2000 to 2002, soil moisture loss was about 1,614 Gt, equivalent to a 1.95 millimetre per year rise in sea level.

That's compared to a 900 Gt loss of ice in Greenland from 2002 to 2006, which contributes to about 0.8mm of sea level rise annually.

Global soil moisture levels have not recovered, and a further 1,009 Gt was lost from 2003 to 2016.

An animated gif showing dramatic rise in sea level in later decades of past century and less land water.

Yearly soil moisture changes and the estimated sea level variation in corresponding years. (Supplied: Earthu H Oh)

One of the study's lead co-authors Dongryeol Ryu, a hydrologist and remote sensing specialist at the University of Mebourne, said the planet was seeing its land-based water storage drop without recovering.

"It's pretty similar to inflation," he said.

"If you are purchasing consumer goods the same way, somehow your wallet becomes slimmer.

"That means that if we use the water in agriculture and other sectors as we did before ... we will have much less water left on the land."

A man with round glasses and a checked shirt checking a large drone at a desk.

University of Mebourne hydrologist Dongryeol Ryu. (Supplied: Dongryeol Ryu)

How researchers estimated Earth's loss of moisture

For some years, scientists have been aware of changes to Earth's hydrological cycle — the movement of water between the surface and the atmosphere — at a regional level.

But getting an idea of whether there has been a longer term global drying trend tied to a warming planet has been more difficult to calculate.

The twin satellite program Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) started collecting data in 2002, and has helped scientists to measure groundwater depletion, sea level changes and ice sheet loss.

These sources can be used to calculate changes in the planet's land-based water storage.

To develop a data set pre-2002, however, the researchers estimated land-based water storage by comparing GRACE's data with historical sea level changes and the wobble in Earth's planetary rotation.

A blue long trapezoid above an illustrated planet Earth.

The Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment twin satellite program has collected data from 2002. (Illustration: NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory)

Professor Ryu said global rain precipitation changed every year, oscillating with ups and downs.

"Even if you have large rainfall or drought in one year, it doesn't mean you see that impact right away in soil moisture because it's a delayed response," he said.

"We had quite a strong El Niño in 1997 and 1998 and also global temperature increasing steeply from the 1980s.

"They all worked together to create this unusual drop in soil moisture in 2000 to 2002."

At the same time, global precipitation dropped, he said.

GRACE measures anomalies in gravity strength with red indicting stronger areas and blue for weaker areas. (Graphic: NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory) (GIPHY)

Georgy Falster, a University of Adelaide climatologist who was not involved in the study, said soil moisture observations around the globe were unfortunately sparse.

That meant reanalysis data used in the study relied heavily on how well modelling simulated changes in soil moisture.

"The satellite and reanalysis data match quite well from 2003 to 2019, providing confidence in these results," Dr Falster said.

"Unfortunately, the satellite data are only available from 2003 so the rapid change across 2000–2002 cannot easily be verified."

What's global warming got to do with it?

Professor Ryu said, on average, it seemed the Earth was losing land-based water storage because of an increase in air temperature and vapour pressure deficit (VPD).

VPD measures the gap between how much moisture is in the air compared to how much moisture the air could have when fully saturated.

Saturated air leads to things like cloud formation and increased precipitation.

Professor Ryu said water was lost in the soil faster if VPD was greater.

"If you look at the global data … both ground and model data show a very clear and steep increase in VPD from around the year 2000," he said.

"At a regional scale like in Australia, in the Northern Territory and Queensland, soil is wetter now than 20 or 30 years ago.

"But on average, it seems [globally] the land is losing water and that's largely because of the increase in temperature and an increase in VPD."

Areas which have seen greater groundwater depletion than other regions include northern India, central California and eastern China.

Dr Falster said the increasing VPD in recent decades was the result of human-caused global warming.

"[It's] making the recovery of lost soil moisture increasingly difficult," she said.

"The authors suggest that droughts over [recent] decades have been so widespread and severe that more than 2,600 Gt of water has permanently been transferred from the continents to the ocean.

"The equivalent of more than 4,000 Sydney Harbours."

Dr Falster said the findings highlighted the importance of continued investment in monitoring variables like soil moisture and evapotranspiration — the movement of water into the atmosphere from evaporation and plant transpiration — both globally and in Australia.

Professor Ryu said further research could look at agricultural water-use to get a better understanding of its impact on water storage depletion.

Posted by at No comments:

Volodymyr Zelenskyy accuses US of 'constantly changing' minerals deal as France hosts more war talks.

 Extract from ABC News

By Riley Stuart in London and Europe correspondent Kathryn Diss in Paris
A man speaking. In this picture, only his face is visible.

Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy makes a point to reporters in Paris on Thursday. (Pool: Stephanie Lecocq via Reuters)

In short: 

Representatives from nearly 30 countries have met in Paris to discuss bolstering support and security guarantees for Ukraine.

After the gathering, Volodymyr Zelenskyy criticised the US, claiming it was "constantly changing" a minerals deal linked to military and financial aid.

What's next? 

Despite both the US and Ukraine saying they want a deal done, there is no date yet for it to be signed.

Volodymyr Zelenskyy accused the US of "constantly changing" a minerals deal linked to military aid, as cracks in the already fractured relationship between Kyiv and Washington appeared to widen on Thursday.

Speaking after a meeting in Paris, the Ukrainian President also said America's stance against Russia, which launched a full-scale invasion of his country three years ago, should be stronger.

"The conditions are constantly changing," Mr Zelenskyy said, of negotiations with the US about the minerals deal.

"I thought that we have agreed that there will be a framework deal, and then the full deal.

"Now, as I understand, the Ukrainian and American teams are working on it, because the US is changing these conditions and offers to sign the full deal right away."

The agreement would see the US get a future 50 per cent stake in Ukraine's vast, state-owned mineral wealth as well as oil and gas reserves.

It would be considered payment for the military and financial aid received since Russia's full-scale invasion three years ago.

Mr Zelenskyy's comments come amid a tumultuous period for Ukrainian-US relations.

American President Donald Trump has criticised his Ukrainian counterpart on numerous occasions and an awkward Oval Office exchange last month meant the world saw how fraught their relationship had become.

Mr Zelenskyy had travelled to Washington to sign the minerals deal, although after the public argument, it didn't happen and Mr Trump retaliated by temporarily cutting off military aid and intelligence to Ukraine.

While speaking in Paris, Mr Zelenskyy said his country needed US support if it was going to be in a strong negotiating position as talks aimed at brokering a ceasefire with Russia continue.

He also said he didn't want his comments about the minerals deal to be interpreted as an indication he was against the agreement.

Three men standing in a grand room, talking

Volodymyr Zelenskiy (left), Keir Starmer and Emmanuel Macron speak during the meeting at the Elysee Palace in Paris on Thursday. (Pool: Ludovic Marin via Reuters)

Mr Zelenskyy was in Paris as part of a meeting of the so-called "coalition of the willing", being led by France and the United Kingdom.

Nearly 30 countries were represented, as well as NATO and European Union chiefs.

The group aims to bolster military and financial aid to Ukraine as it fights Russia's invasion, and provide security after the war ends.

French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer are attempting to garner support for a multi-national peacekeeping force to be deployed to Ukraine after a ceasefire is declared, but so far, public commitments from other countries with regard to sending soldiers are scarce.

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has previously said he'd consider putting boots on the ground in Ukraine after a ceasefire is declared.

Two woman talking and laughing.

Denmark's Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen shares a joke with her Italian counterpart Giorgia Meloni in Paris on Thursday. (Pool: Ludovic Marin via Reuters)

The US has convened separate ceasefire talks with delegations from Russia and Ukraine, but progress has been slow.

Marie Dumoulin, the director of the Wider Europe programme at the European Council on Foreign Relations, told the ABC the coalition being formed was an important part of Ukraine's security.

"There are talks going on between the United States, Russia and Ukraine and Europeans are not involved," she said.

"The coalition that is building up is a way to signal that there are a number of countries willing to offer Ukraine options for its long-term security."

On Thursday, European nations at the Paris meeting agreed to supply two million rounds of ammunition to Ukraine.

Germany and France have this week also pledged to send €3 billion ($5.14 billion) and €2 billion ($3.42 billion) respectively in additional aid to Ukraine.

Speaking after the Paris meeting, Mr Starmer accused Russia of "filibustering" ceasefire negotiations.

It's understood Mr Trump and Mr Macron spoke via phone as part of Thursday's meeting, as the French leader tries to shore up support for sending troops to Ukraine.

"My wish is that the Americans are engaged at our side," Macron said after the meeting

"But we have to be prepared for a situation in which they maybe don't join in."

David Cadier, a research fellow at the Insitute of Strategic Studies — a defence and security think tank — said it was unsurprising not all countries at the Paris meeting had made public commitments to put troops in Ukraine.

"Where there might be disagreements and the divergences will rather be in relation to the individual contribution of each country," he told the ABC, adding that deploying soldiers was not the only way to show support.

"Contributions can vary, on land, on the sea and in the air," he said.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova on Thursday claimed France and the UK were planning a "military intervention in Ukraine" and warned it could lead to a direct flashpoint between Russia and NATO.

Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, 27 March 2025

Trump administration to end funding for child vaccines in poorest nations.

Extract from ABC News

Close up of an arm being injected with a syringe by a blue-gloved hand

The Trump administration is set to end funding for childhood vaccines in poor nations.

In short:

Documents show the US government wants to end support for an organisation that helps administer vaccines to children in developing countries.

It is the latest blow to aid organisations amid cutbacks on global programs by the Trump administration.

What's next?

The documents show the US will continue funding grants to pay for drugs that treat HIV and tuberculosis.

The US government plans to end financial support for Gavi, an organisation that helps buy vaccines for children in developing countries. 

According to a document, which has been seen by multiple news organisations, the Trump administration is also planning to scale back efforts to combat malaria — a highly dangerous infection spread by mosquito bites.

The administration will continue to fund some grants that pay for drugs that treat HIV and tuberculosis (TB) and provide food aid to nations where civil wars and natural disasters are occurring, the document — first reported by the New York Times — showed.

The US Health and Human Services Department did not respond to a request for comment, according to news agency Reuters.

The US government has drastically scaled back foreign aid since Donald Trump took office, with around 80 per cent of US Agency for International Development contracts abruptly cut.

The 281-page document lists 898 programs that will remain active, totalling US$78 billion ($123 billion) in spending — much of which it says has already been disbursed.

In a statement on X, Gavi said that US support for its operations was "vital".

"With US support, we can save over 8 million lives over the next 5 years and give millions of children a better chance at a healthy, prosperous future," it said in a statement on X.

The announcement would dramatically undermine global efforts to combat preventable diseases in the developing world.

Mr Trump's US health secretary, Robert F Kennedy Jr, is a notable vaccine sceptic, and presides over the country's sprawling, trillion-dollar health agencies.

Reuters

Posted by at No comments:

Wednesday, 26 March 2025

Team Trump's group chat blunder has stunned Washington. Will anyone be held to account?

Extract from ABC News 

Analysis

In any other presidency, the story would rock the United States: Washington's most senior national security advisers having a highly confidential discussion about plans for the US to launch military strikes, and every word of it being read by an astonished journalist.

But in these times of the New World of Donald Trump it was seen as yet another day — a story that might run for a few hours before blowing over.

Washington is not what it used to be. When news emerged that The Atlantic's editor-in-chief had been accidentally included in a group chat about a plan to bomb Yemen, Trump barely missed a beat.

He knew nothing about it, he told a media conference. He asked journalists for detail, but wasn't particularly fazed. Later, on social media, he re-shared a satirical headline poking fun at The Atlantic's readership numbers.

There was no apparent sense that there would be any accountability. These things happen.

The story broke when Jeffrey Goldberg wrote in The Atlantic that he knew in advance that the US was about to conduct air strikes on Yemen's Houthis on March 15.

"The reason I knew this is that Pete Hegseth, the Secretary of Defence, had texted me the war plan at 11.44 am," Goldberg revealed. "The plan included precise information about weapons packages, targets and timing."

Goldberg wrote:

"On Tuesday, March 11, I received a connection request on Signal from a user identified as Michael Waltz.

"Signal is an open-source encrypted messaging service popular with journalists and others who seek more privacy than other text-messaging services are capable of delivering. 

"I assumed that the Michael Waltz in question was President Donald Trump's national security adviser."

Goldberg, as an experienced journalist, was concerned that it may have been a hoax but accepted the request, hoping it was the real Mike Waltz and that perhaps he wanted to talk about Ukraine or Iran.

One can imagine Goldberg's surprise when he became part of a group chat discussing a military operation to bomb Yemen.

Emojis and casual celebration

The group included Vice-President JD Vance, and key officials or representatives of them, including Waltz; Steve Witkoff, Trump's Middle East and Ukraine negotiator; Susie Wiles, the White House chief of staff; and Marco Rubio, the secretary of state. The group also included a CIA official, who Goldberg chose not to name as that person is an active intelligence officer.

Goldberg wrote he "could not believe that the national security leadership of the United States would communicate on Signal about imminent war plans".

"I also could not believe that the national security adviser to the president would be so reckless as to include the editor in chief of The Atlantic in such discussions with senior US official, up to and including the vice-president," he wrote.

For Goldberg, the security breach continued. After the bombing, Waltz celebrated by posting three emojis — a fist, an American flag and fire. There had indeed been fire — Yemen's health authorities say the bombing killed at least 53 people.

Witkoff was not to be outdone, and, Goldberg wrote, sent five emojis to the group: two sets of hands praying, a flexed bicep and two American flags.

A message from JD Vance says "Excellent". A message from Michael Waltz includes fist, flag and flame emojis.

After the attacks, officials shared congratulatory messages, according to The Atlantic.

For 18 senior US officials to have a casual chat on a commercial social media platform has shocked many in Washington.

It comes only days after The New York Times reported on a plan for Elon Musk to be given a tour of the Pentagon — including, according to anonymous sources, a briefing about US plans for any war with China. (The Trump administration both labelled the story fake and launched internal probes into how it was leaked.)

Although Trump's support ensured Hegseth was confirmed as secretary of defence, many concerns were raised as to whether someone who before this position had been a weekend host on Fox News was qualified to oversee the world's largest military.

The incident raises some obvious questions about the level of competence of Trump's national security team.

A message from JD Vance says "Excellent". A message from Michael Waltz includes fist, flag and flame emojis.

Messages published by The Atlantic show JD Vance and Pete Hegseth complaining about Europe.

The first questions that naturally come to mind are about how a magazine editor was invited to join — and then able to lurk in — this 18-member group with nobody asking: "Hang on, who's that guy?"

But beyond that stunning blunder, the bigger questions are about the handling of confidential, and potentially classified, military plans by these top officials.

Keeping secrets safe

Anyone who's watched an American spy drama or war movie knows the US has incredibly tight protocols around where and how state secrets are discussed.

That's why Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server during her time as secretary of state blew up into a damaging scandal during the 2016 election campaign — one that Donald Trump repeatedly said she should be jailed over.

And it's why Trump himself faced criminal charges — ultimately dropped — over the alleged stashing of classified documents in his Mar-a-Lago ballroom and bathroom.

This new revelation appears to represent a significant breach of those protocols.

It's not clear exactly what was in the messages, because The Atlantic deemed some of it too sensitive to print. Hegseth has disputed the description of them as "war plans".

But on the known facts, it appears at least some of the chat should have been confined to the authorised, secure channels set up for purposes like sensitive military discussion.

Signal is a more secure app than others, thanks to its encryption technology, but no app can ever be considered free of vulnerabilities.

Security and defence experts here in Washington say it looks like the Espionage Act may have been breached.

The fall-out will be felt beyond Washington.

You can imagine the chatter today in parts of Canberra.

When conversations like the group chat take place in Australia, there's an expectation it's done over secure lines. 

A similar howler in Australia would almost certainly send heads rolling.

Australia and America's other Five Eyes intelligence partners — Canada, the UK and New Zealand — were already being forced to wrestle with questions about how much they could continue to trust their long-time ally.

Incidents like this will only shake that faith further.

But will there be any accountability?

The agencies that would traditionally investigate something like this are now under the tight control of fierce Trump loyalists.

And the Trump administration's flood-the-zone strategy is likely to push the news agenda through another dizzying series of events before the week is out.

Perhaps the most America can hope for is that this shocking error — and the publicity that results from putting a magazine editor in the middle of it — serves as a wake-up call that leads to more care in future.

Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)