The threat of ‘peak data’, and what that could mean for the way we connect and access essential services in the future, is the focus of a report released by CSIRO.

Director of CSIRO’s Digital Productivity and Services Flagship Dr Ian Oppermann said wireless technology had been adopted at “breakneck pace” in Australia and around the world.

“The data rates that people now expect from their mobile services are about a hundred times the amount we thought possible only two decades ago,” Dr Oppermann said.

The report, World Without Wires, points out that wireless communications rely on the availability of radiofrequency spectrum. The spectrum has practical limits and more spectrum cannot be created so we are faced with a finite resource and growing demands to use it.

Today’s technologies and infrastructure will be hard pressed to support further increases in demand, both in terms of speed and volume, for wireless data and services over the coming decades.

Many global cities, including here in Australia, are fast approaching the point of ‘peak data’ – where user demand for wireless internet, telephony, and other services can no longer be fully accommodated by the available radiofrequency spectrum.

“Currently the useable spectrum is divided up and allocated to various uses, such as TV/radio broadcast, emergency services, and mobile phone communications for example,” Dr Oppermann said.

“In the future, how spectrum is allocated may change and we can expect innovation to find new ways to make it more efficient but the underlying position is that spectrum is an increasingly rare resource.

“Some estimates suggest that spectrum demand will have almost tripled by 2020, and existing infrastructure will need to rapidly expand its currently available capacity if it’s to meet this demand.

“With more and more essential services, including medical, education and government services, being delivered digitally and on mobile devices, finding a solution to “peak data” will become ever more important into the future.”

World Without Wires examines the role that ubiquitous access to high-speed wireless connectivity will play in enabling a range of future applications and social developments, including:

The replacement of digital TV and telephony services by internet-based, personalised streaming services

Widespread sensing technologies that optimise and improve almost every aspect of our daily lives
The widespread use of wireless positioning technologies, from making driverless cars the norm to enhancing retail experiences through “virtual concierges”
“tele-services” as the default model of service delivery for government and businesses, with education, healthcare and other public goods being delivered via private digital networks
A radical improvement in the way existing wireless infrastructure accommodates ongoing growth in service demands, including smaller cells, smarter antennae, and beyond.

“Such developments will have a profound impact on both Australia and the rest of the world, constituting significant market opportunities, and a chance to deliver widespread public good from our wireless research and enterprise community,” Dr Oppermann said.

To access a copy of World Without Wires visit: www.csiro.au/wireless

To find out more about CSIRO’s Digital Productivity and Services Flagship visit: www.csiro.au/dpas

Once again we have taken a stand to limit carbon dioxide emissions — a stand that only lasted one hour.

If you don’t know what I’m talking about, then we have failed. So to be sure you know what I’m blabbering about— and will continue to do so —I’ll tell you now.

Earth Hour was once again held on Saturday this weekend. It has been going on since 2007, on the last Saturday in March. Started by WWF Australia; backed by Fairfax and Sydney Lord Mayor Clover Moore its first year.

In 2008 it became an international event that has gathered a lot of traction. Always getting covered in the media and by social media with great enthusiasm.

Weirdly enough, as someone that reads the news daily, I didn’t notice any mention of it on Saturday. Usually when I eventually drag myself out of bed, eyes barely open and clutching a cup of coffee, Earth Hour would be one of the top stories I would encounter.

Not this year tho. I only got reminded about it by chance when someone I follow on Twitter mentioned it the day before. If I hadn’t read that tweet, I would be non the wiser about Earth Hour this year.

I think we should take that as a sign that it’s time to take a new approach— up the game a bit —and maybe accept that it has very little effect on carbon dioxide emissions.

During Earth Hour it seems to be popular to light a few candles so we don’t sit in complete darkness. The issue with using candles is that they are petroleum-based. In other words, not that environmentally friendly — nor are they energy efficient.

Environmentalist Bjørn Lomborg wrote in The Australian that, “candles are almost 100 times less efficient than incandescent light bulbs, and more than 300 times less efficient than fluorescent lights. Light one candle and it will emit as much CO2 as you were saving. Light a bunch of candles and you’ll have emitted much more CO2. So Earth Hour may actually increase CO2 emissions.”

Not forgetting that most light bulbs and electrical appliances uses an extra jolt of electricity when powered on.

His criticism doesn’t stop there. He also claims it mocks the poor.

“While more than a billion people across the globe make a symbol of forgoing non-essential electrical power for one hour a year, another 1.3 billion people across the developing world will continue to live without electricity as they do every other night of the year. Almost three billion people still burn dung, twigs and other traditional fuels indoors to cook and keep warm. These fuels give off noxious fumes that kill an estimated 3.5 million people each year, mostly women and children.”

I have to admit, that the first time I came across Earth Hour I did participate. But I also remember when that hour had past, the lights and the TV got turned on again, as if it had never happened — but I felt good about participating.

There lies the issue with Earth Hour. There is so much focus on participating one hour once a year that we think, as long as I participate that one hour I’ve made my contribution — my hands are clean and no-one can say I’m not doing my bit for the environment.

It is the perfect textbook example of [slacktivism][4]. We sit at home, turn off our lights and electrical appliances for an hour and stroke our egos raw online — I’ve done my bit, have you?

Completely oblivious to the fact that the majority of us actually turn of our lights and electrical appliances every night for at least six hours. In other words, we have six Earth Hours every night year after year. That one Earth Hour a year were we might burn petroleum-based candles do nothing, other than possibly create more carbon dioxide emissions.

There is of course no denying it when it comes to campaigning, Earth Hour is extremely successful. It hasn’t only engaged people online, but also governments around the world. But it seems to fail in keeping the engagement going for longer than that one hour a year.

As I mentioned earlier, it is prudent that we figure out how to keep people engaged more than that one hour a year if we want to have a positive impact on our climate.

Not only that. We need to figure out how to take more action than flicking a switch.

Switching off your lights for an hour, once a year, is too easy. We should be expected to do more than that.

A quiet revolution in food distribution is taking place in our midst but most of us remain blissfully unaware. Some of us buy food from market stalls or smaller suppliers. The rest of us pop off to the supermarket or the local shop without a second thought. When it comes down to it, what’s the difference?

The answer is, just about everything.

Drought relief has raised awareness about the viability of many farms. The scandal around SPC, once a farmer’s cooperative and now part of Coca Cola Amatil who wants to close it, has reminded all of us how important it is to keep an eye on who owns our food production.

The sad truth is that the family farm has been disappearing for decades and food factories are becoming the norm.

Variability and economies of scale

The Roman Senate fixed the price of grain “low enough to prevent the people rioting and high enough to keep the farmer on the land”. The fall of Rome is often attributed to the impossible nature of this task in a sprawling empire.

Modern corporations are more subtle. The dollar-a-litre-milk campaign sets the retail price of food so low that only huge businesses with subsidies from governments and major supermarkets can afford to supply them.

When Coles executive Peter Scott was sacked in November 2006 for misconduct it was revealed that he had a 20 percent stake in a major beef supplier Tasman Group Holdings. Coles paid everyone less than the production price for beef but then paid a bonus to a small number of suppliers, including Tasman Group. Those suppliers could then buy struggling, unprofitable farmers who were not getting the bonuses. This practice continues today.

So it is that corporate agribusiness has virtually eliminated the “enthusiastic rustic” from the agricultural landscape.

Fighting back

Food Connect General Happiness Manager, Emma-Kate Rose, told Westender that the farmers supplying her company receive 50% of the retail dollar.

“We want to ensure we engage great family farmers in our local region who care about producing great food while caring for the land.”

A highly-distributed network of community hubs, city cousins and sympathetic outlets distribute the food directly to the customer.

“Customers have to get used to the seasonality of food. We do not sell kiwi fruit from Italy, oranges from California or garlic from China,” she said. “That means that sometimes the things you need for a particular recipe are not in the box”

“We assist customers by providing relevant recipes and tips for eating seasonally. It’s great for your health too, because buying in season means you are getting the most beneficial nutrients. We think of food as our medicine, to the preventative health benefits are substantial.”

As well as fresh food, Food Connect provides a range of processed food from olive oils, organic peanut butter and raw honey to milk, bread and eggs.

The Food Connect Foundation works with global organisations to redress the balance between farmers and industrial food production. The foundation’s website sums up the problem neatly.

“From 1990-2007 the number of Australian grain farmers dropped by a fifth. Dairy farmers have declined by three-quarters. Family farmers are squeezed to ‘get big or get out’. The financial and social burdens on many farmers and their families have reached and exceeded breaking point. The rate of suicide and depression amongst male farmers and agricultural workers is more than double that of the urban employed.”

Emma-Kate told Westender that drought and market conditions have driven farmers to despair with a reported 32 suicides in the district.

Westenders recently supported the Foundation to send six Aussie farmers to La Via Campesina in Jakarta. We all need to raise our awareness of where our food dollar is going.

<Link:> Search “food connect” “La Via Campesina” “Tasman Group Holdings”

<author>Geoff Ebbs

I read Boy, Lost … cried for a while … rang my mother … wrote to an almost adopted brother who spent his life in institutions because I had taken his place … then cried a little more.

Boy, Lost is a powerful story of loss, separation, unwarranted punishment and the ongoing ramifications of these horrors.

Almost as soon as Westender published a short notice that Kristina Olsson’s latest book is shortlisted for the Stella Prize, the accolades began to flow. <Letters, p9> Many people have been similarly affected by this true-novel.

The story of Kristina’s mother, her brutal separation from her first child and the ongoing implications of that for the mother, the son and Kristina’s family is tragic, powerful  and moving.

Writers are lucky, though. We have the chance to examine, structure and externalise our emotional processes. I’m even luckier, I was invited to interview Kristina and explore her story to share with you.

Boy, Lost is not just a personal account it is the story of Kristina’s family. I asked her about the challenges that presented.

“I approached it as a journalist, with the habitual distancing that we use so we can get up in the morning without weeping, so I could deal with the material. After a year, I realised that it was just not working and I had to claim the story, I had to find myself in it, I had to recognise the impact that my mother’s suffering had on me, my siblings and my parenting. Once I claimed the story as my own it flowed.”

“The two questions that haunted me as I researched this book were, ‘Why did no-one help my mother?’ and ‘Why did no-one help Peter?’ Motherhood and childhood are treated as euphemisms, the women are always second-class citizens and take the guilt on themselves.”

She noted that in the fifties the men returning from the war had no expression for the immorality and brutality they had experienced. It was not part of the official narrative and so many women bore the brunt of those men’s shame.

“But no-one spoke about it.”

I asked her about her observation that the pain of separation crosses generations. If she and her siblings could be affected by events that happened before they were born, might there not be a dark core in Australian culture that carries forward old wounds and if so, what can we do.

“Absolutely. Women have been emotionally and physically diminished and punished and left feeling unwarranted guilt and shame. We have to empower women and power has to be taken.

“The programs of the nineties that centred on women being able to speak, to recognise their circumstances and name the problem, were all about that. That is something missing from the current climate of government.”

She noted this is especially important in regional Australia where life is harsh, weapons handy in many homes and isolation the norm.

She said that the danger is that the problem becomes invisible when there is the top of the power structure does not have the right attitude.

“The view that it is all about the bottom-line goes hand in hand with the idea that ‘might is right’. The bottom line should be the health of all citizens.”

I discussed the challenges engaging men in dealing with domestic violence. On one hand I am driven to ‘do something’ on the other, centuries of men ‘doing things’ has achieved little. Even worse, I am aware of my own controlling, power mongering behaviour and the negative impacts that has had in my family.

By Daisy Lola

Live Below The Line is a non-profit charity organisation which aims to raise awareness of the poverty that millions of people live with every day. Participants from across the globe undertake the challenge of eating off a budget of $2 per day, for five days. During this time they raise not only money, but an understanding of the reality struggles previously unknown to themselves and their communities.

Interview #1: 

UQ student Hannah Fuller has witnessed worldwide poverty first hand, working with outreach programs in Australia as well as travelling through Borneo. Having a strong sense of justice throughout her life, hearing about Live Below The Line pushed Hannah into taking direct action in her day-to-day life.

“The hardest part,” she explains, “was attempting to eat nutritional food whilst remaining within the limitation of a $10/week budget. It’s easy to meet the guidelines just by eating carbohydrates, but far more difficult to do so and maintain a healthy diet.”

Nutritional concerns are a common theme when speaking to Live Below The Line participants, which begs the question, how can we strive for a healthy, disease-free world when so many of us live under such harsh conditions?

Hannah stresses the importance of being conscious of our decisions at all times, and aware of how our personal footprint can impact upon those experiencing poverty both throughout the world and on our own doorsteps.

“I know that sometimes we feel so small, like the world’s issues are too big for individuals to change whatsoever. But it’s not true. Through campaigns like Live Below The Line, we can have a direct impact on those less fortunate than ourselves and help to end the poverty cycle.”

Interview #2:

Economics student Calum Hendry is so passionate about making a difference, he accepted a job with the Oaktree Foundation, who run Live Below The Line. He stresses the importance of surrounding yourself with like-minded people throughout the week in order to keep inspiration and energy levels to a maximum. What means so much to Calum about this fundraiser is the empathy channel it opens;

“I understand that LBL is by no means a true representation of what it’s like to live below the poverty line. However, the idea that I would be able to feel more of a connection at any level towards people who are suffering below that line meant a lot to me.”

Calum’s role within the foundation is to co-ordinate the challenge amongst the UQ colleges. This year, they raised over $23,000.

Living off rice, stewed apples, bean soup and lentils for a week may not sound super appealing to the typical privileged Brisbanite, but five days out of our lives may change the course of an impoverished person’s forever.

“It’s not too late to get involved,” enthuses Calum, “You can donate to the campaign or individuals on the website, or even take the challenge yourself in June.”

Conclusion:

It seems to be Brisbane’s youth that are championing this cause, and good for them! No longer do we see apathetic teenagers unwilling to put themselves out there or try new things – conversely, they’re the game changers when it comes to truly making a difference in the world they intend to grow old in.

Live Below The Line (www.livebelowtheline.com.au) is an astonishing opportunity for Australians to check their privilege and gather a deeper understanding of what living under the poverty line truly means.

About Daisy

When I have a daughter, I am going to teach her how to scream at the top of her lungs; she will know the power of her voice from the time she can form a sentence, but she will never scream without reason. I will teach my daughter that we do not kick and scream and yell unless we want someone to run – either towards us or away from. Yelling is a sign of danger, and we use it fucking wisely, my princess.