Stinging deaths, back yard poisons and billions spent: model predicts Australia's fire ants future
Australian households will spend $1.03bn every year to suppress fire ants and cover related medical and veterinary costs, with about 570,800 people needing medical attention and 30 likely deaths from the invasive pest's stings, new modelling shows.
The Australia Institute research breaks down the impact of red imported fire ants (Rifa) by electorate, with the seats of Durack and O'Connor in Western Australia, Mayo in South Australia and Blair in Queensland the hardest hit if the ants become endemic.
Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email
Drawing on census data and earlier studies about the impact of Rifa, the new figures show that pesticides and pest control pose the highest financial cost to households annually, $581m, followed by medical expenses of $233m and veterinary costs of $215m. A co-author of the report warned the 'huge' volume of pesticide needed to fight the ants will affect the environment.
The new modelling doubles an earlier estimate that put total household costs at $536m, and has concerned experts who say individuals may take eradication into their own hands.
In the WA seat of Durack alone, the forecasting shows more than 60,000 people would be stung, 1,209 of whom would develop an anaphylactic reaction. Almost 19,000 dogs and cats would require the attention of a vet after being stung.
In the marginal Queensland electorates of Blair, held by Labor's Shayne Neumann; Dickson, held by Peter Dutton; and the Greens-held Ryan, the annual costs of Rifa total $21.1m:
Blair: $1.7m in medical costs, $1.5m in vet costs and $5.1m in household pesticide costs.
Dickson: $1.4m in medical costs, $1.2m in vet costs and $4m in household pesticide costs.
Ryan: $1.5m in medical costs, $1.3m in vet costs and $3.4m in household pesticide costs.
The ants would create an additional 2.1m visits to vets nationwide – a figure that comes after the Invasive Species Council warned 'a lot' of pets are suspected to have been killed by fire ant stings, including a puppy found dead on a fire ant nest in Greenbank about 15 months ago.
Rifa are managed over an 830,000-hectare zone of south-eastern Queensland by the national fire ant eradication program. It uses a combination of bait and direct nest injection to suppress and eliminate the pest.
Given their rapid spread, Rifa may increasingly be managed by stand-alone households which, according to the forecasting, would each spend $83 on pesticides each year.
The Invasive Species Council's Reece Pianta said if eradication funding was not ramped up, the modelling suggested Australia could follow in the footsteps of the US.
'Fire ant eradication failure means Australian households could get slugged with a $580m bill each year as they take fire ant control into their own hands.
Sign up to Breaking News Australia
Get the most important news as it breaks
after newsletter promotion
'In the United States, where fire ants cannot be eradicated, residents in fire ant zones find their neighbours using a range of harsh or off-label chemical treatments to control these killer invaders,' he said.
'Parents are not going to just sit by and let their kids be stung by these tiny killers, so it's no surprise we hear of stories in the USA of petrol being poured on nests, or uncontrolled chemical use.'
He said the new financial modelling for suppression alone amounted to as much as the current four-year fire ant eradication program budget of $592.8m every year – for ever.
A 2021 government study found that governments and individuals would need to spend $200m to $300m annually over the next 10 years to stamp out Rifa and avoid ongoing annual costs of at least $2bn caused by the pest. The planned funding was only half that amount, the council said.
Research director at the Australian Institute and the report's co-author, Rod Campbell, said the figures showed the economic case for fire ant eradication was 'a no-brainer'.
'Behind the dollar figures though, is what the money would be spent on – pesticides.
'Australia needs to eradicate fire ants urgently not just to save money for households, but to avoid huge volumes of pesticides going into our back yards, fields and bushland.'
Rifa were first detected in Queensland in 2001 and can kill people, native animals and livestock as well as damage infrastructure and ecosystems.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
11 hours ago
- Spectator
How the ‘experts' got the grooming gang scandal so wrong
At this stage we can't predict what the government's new grooming gangs inquiry will say. But one thing is overwhelmingly likely: many will feel the heat. This includes police who stood back in the face of clear patterns of child sexual exploitation by young Pakistani men to avoid racial tension; social workers desperate not to offend their largely unassimilated Muslim clients; and councillors and politicians who said 'move on, nothing to see here' because of fears that Muslim voters might disown anyone who rocked the multicultural boat. With few exceptions, academics were some of the keenest to suppress discussion about groooming gang abusers' origins or ethnicity Even more interesting, however, is the light all this this has thrown on academia. With few exceptions, academics were some of the keenest to suppress discussion about the abusers' origins or ethnicity. Any reference to this, it was constantly said, risked spreading anti-Muslim racism, distracting attention from more important problems, 'racialising crime', ''othering' South Asian men' and characterising them as 'folk devils'. Paper after paper, seminar after seminar, was devoted to pushing variants on these themes. At first sight this looks odd. Police and social services at least had an incentive to make their jobs easier; so too politicians anxious about their voter base. But academics with no skin in this game? Why should they engage so hard in support of one side? Partly, one suspects, this may be due to the university environment. Ten years ago, a survey found 77 per cent of academics backed Labour, the Lib Dems or the Greens. Only 11 per cent were for the Tories. Today, the figure is possibly even more skewed. This doesn't just mean many academics are instinctively likely to support an approach based on racial identity politics. More seriously, all articles have to be peer reviewed. Peer reviewers within the humanities professoriate are only human. With the best will in the world, one suspects an article trying to minimise the relevance of ethnicity in favour of other factors is likely in practice to get an easier ride. But there is more to it than this. Few admit it, but there is something of a Faustian pact between universities and their state funders and providers of research grants, built on the fiction that in the humanities as much as in traditional sciences the state is investing in cutting-edge advances in knowledge. As a result, today's humanities academics, especially young ones with careers to make or lose, are pressured not only to produce more papers, but also to make their publications 'innovative', and in addition to strive for what is referred to as 'impact', a somewhat protean term that essentially means getting noticed by the great and the good. There are, put bluntly, big brownie points in getting called before a parliamentary committee or quango. The resulting incentive is baneful and perverse. Far from encouraging people to take a sober look at subjects like the sex grooming figures in Rochdale or Oldham and propose low-key, possibly unpalatable, measures to deal with them, the ambitious academic is much better advised to take a different, radical, line – indeed, the more radical the better. Much more attractive to university managers is the construction of new narratives based on theories of the impact of systemic racism or racist media, or on abstract notions of the 'othering' of particular groups. And there is the bonus that if you have radical ideas you're more likely to gain impact by being invited to address that parliamentary committee. This isn't necessarily to criticise the academics concerned. As often as not they have little choice but to promote their increasingly abstract and abtruse theories (many of which are intellectually dodgy owing to their tenuous link with empiricism and regular adoption of incomprehensible and conclusory jargon, but that's another story). But this phenomenon does have one very important result. Fifty years or so ago academics commanded a natural respect. If a professor pronounced on a social problem, with a few exceptions what they said was probably understandable to a layperson, soundly anchored in empiricism, and demonstrative of common sense. This was what made people take notice and take what they said seriously. Today, academics increasingly sound like just another part of the progressive commentariat, albeit with an annoying habit of unashamedly using increasingly esoteric words and, when challenged, insisting that it's not surprising we can't understand their high-powered science. That is their right. But there is also another side to this. If academics go down this road, they have little if any right to respect for their opinionated ramblings, and no particular claim to be listened to by government. We can only hope that the members of the grooming gang inquiry have the good sense to keep this in mind, and treat the earnest pronouncements of the new professoriate with the pointed scepticism they deserve.
The Herald Scotland
12 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Meet the 'radical' Greens challenging Harvie and Chapman
Tall and gregarious, the environmental campaigner has a disarming nature. Yet, speaking about his decision to stand in the party's selection contest against leading Green MSP Maggie Chapman — his former boss — Ingerson's voice crackles with passion. Indeed, he is just one of the party's foot soldiers to express dissatisfaction with the status quo in recent weeks. In Glasgow, a self-described 'unashamedly socialist' slate of candidates are looking to unseat long-time party boss Patrick Harvie. I spoke to Iris Duane, 22, earlier this week. Guy Ingerson is standing against Maggie Chapman. (Image: Supplied)'We are at a monumental crossroads,' the Glasgow University Vice President for Student Support notes. 'This election process is about having that conversation, seeing where we want to take the party and what we want to do in the future. 'All three of us,' Duane says, referring to co-conspirators Ellie Gomersall and Seonad Hoy, 'are working class and often feel quite discontented by the political class. 'Our message is very clear. We are unashamedly socialist. We are members of an eco-socialist party and we believe that that should be reflected.' Here too, the passion is evident. This perspective, that Scottish Greens leadership is out of touch with rank-and-file members, is shared by Hoy, a Hillhead councillor elected in a by-election upset last March. She remarks: 'A change of direction is needed. We've achieved a lot from our current MSP team. But now we need practical change that will impact peoples' daily lives. The mum and social housing advocate, who has been involved with the party since the independence referendum drew her into the political fray a decade ago, adds: 'I think we have a bit of an image problem. We're seen as quite middle-class and establishment. We need to be speaking to people." Scottish Greens councillor for Hillhead Seonad Hoy. (Image: Seonad Hoy) 'The Bute House Agreement was a major issue for the party and our external image,' Hoy concedes. 'I was in favour when we signed it, but there were a couple things which upset me, especially Humza Yousaf announcing a council tax freeze without consulting us. 'That should have been a red line.' The feeling that the Scottish Government has sold out local councils is shared by Ellie Gomersall, the third member of this radical triumvirate. Gomersall, formerly the president of student union NUS Scotland, will be challenging Harvie directly, asking Green members to select her number one on the party's list. She tells me: 'Everyday in Glasgow, I see the impact that cuts are having. There's a lack of ambition coming from the Scottish Parliament. I believe the Greens are pushing the parliament to go further, but we need more Green MSPs and fresh voices. 'Although we accomplished a lot, many members have lost trust in the party after signing the BHA due to issues like cuts and the council tax freeze.' Ellie Gomersall is also standing. (Image: Ellie Gomersall) Duane agrees. Asked what her priorities as an MSP would be, she pauses, before continuing. 'We often speak about wealth distribution and progressive taxation. But often what isn't raised is just how battered our local authorities have been in recent years. There are many, many local champions across many parties who are fighting for their areas. 'They've basically got two hands and two legs tied behind them. Councils need more money and whilst they're doing things like raising parking prices or raising council tax, it's simply not enough.' The Aberdeen-based Ingerson also brings up local government cuts, which have struck the Granite City hard in recent years with the closure of six libraries and a leisure centre in 2023. 'The North East has seen cuts to services and workers feel they aren't being listened to,' he remarks. 'We need someone on the top of the list who is from Mastrick (a neighborhood in Aberdeen) and has really good insight into the community.' Iris Duane stood for the Greens at the general election last year. (Image: Scottish Greens)The just transition is also a concern for the ex-oil and gas worker, who says: 'We desperately need a good plan. People need to know the timescale and need to know where the jobs are going. 'Right now, there is not a clear plan, we need to be led by the workers who are being affected.' Asked about the rise of Reform, Ingerson says the political malaise created by mainstream parties provides the Greens with a 'unique opportunity'. He tells me: 'We are well placed to pick up on disaffected voters but the key thing is we need to select the right people. 'Those attracted to Reform are people who are f***ed off' — I can quote that, he quips — 'with the way the dominant parties are treating them and we have a unique opportunity to offer them an alternative.' Maggie Chapman, who is currently involved in an internal bullying complaint lodged by Ingerson, has made similar comments. Read more: 'I'm just a wee bam from Grangemouth' How Gillian Mackay aims to lead Scottish Greens Greens activist to challenge Maggie Chapman for top spot on Holyrood list Green activist urges Harvie and Greer to make way for 'radical women' at election In her pitch to party members, she said: 'As your MSP, I have consistently demanded radical change, standing firm for our values and principles. I want to continue using my voice and experience to fight for the transformations the North East desperately needs and create a fairer, more peaceful world.' Indeed, Chapman has been a constant presence at events across the North East, protesting everything from shuttered libraries to job losses at Aberdeen University. Chatting to me a day later, Gomersall echoes Ingerson's language, noting: 'People are so tired of the political class, they are turning to Reform because they are scunnered with the status quo. 'When it comes to the issues working class people face, the Greens have the solutions, but that's not cutting through to people. So we need to change the narrative and priorities surrounding the party. On the ground, the reality is that our party is much more working class than people would expect. 'But that needs to be reflected in Holyrood.' Patrick Harvie (L) has been in Holyrood since 2003. (Image: PA) In a statement, Patrick Harvie praised the work of the party in the last several years, calling it the most successful period in their history. He told The Herald: 'In this session of Parliament we've delivered free bus travel for young people, wiping out school meal debt and expanding free school meals, saving people who rent their homes thousands of pounds through the rent freeze, investing in energy efficiency and increasing the Scottish Child Payment... and much of this paid for through progressive taxation that the Greens achieved, so people on high incomes pay their fair share. 'If I think back to the many long years when Greens could only campaign for change while achieving nothing, there can be zero doubt that we have been taking the right path in recent years. 'Greens are here to make a difference for people, not to be just a party of protest that gets nothing done.' One party source said Harvie remains popular among the Greens' 'significant passive membership' and that the race for the top spots on the Glasgow list could come down to Duane, Gomersall, Harvie and Langside councillor Holly Bruce, who was praised as having a 'good track record which appeals to lots of our members'. Early next month, party members will be asked to make a decision on the future of the Scottish Greens. Will they reaffirm long-time grandees or embrace fresh, working-class voices? Their decision, whatever it may be, will reverberate through the halls of Holyrood for years to come.
The Guardian
a day ago
- The Guardian
Ancient trees are shipped to the UK, then burned – using billions in ‘green' subsidies. Stop this madness now
How green is this? We pay billions of pounds to cut down ancient forests in the US and Canada, ship the wood across the Atlantic in diesel tankers, then burn it in a Yorkshire-based power station. Welcome to the scandal of Drax, where Britain's biggest polluter gets to play climate hero. The reality is that billions in public subsidies has enabled Drax to generate electricity by burning 300m trees. Now the government is trying to force through an extension that would grant Drax an estimated £1.8bn in public subsidies on top of the £11bn it has already pocketed, keeping this circus going until at least 2031. This isn't green energy. The mathematics alone should horrify anyone who cares about value for money or the environment. Burning wood creates 18% more CO2 emissions than coal. Even if you replant every tree Drax destroys, it takes up to a century for new growth to reabsorb the carbon released. We're supposed to reach net zero by 2050, not 2125. Yet through circus-trick accounting, all of Drax's massive emissions magically disappear from Britain's climate ledger. They've simply been wished away – counted as 'zero', while the company becomes our largest single contributor to climate breakdown. Extraordinarily, this scandal unites opposition across the political spectrum. From the Greens to Reform, from the Morning Star to the Daily Telegraph, there's rare consensus that Drax represents everything wrong with our approach to climate policy. The Labour-dominated public accounts committee condemned Drax as a 'white elephant' that's been allowed to 'mark its own homework' while claiming 'billions upon billions' in subsidies. A Lords committee agreed, saying parliament needs to see key documents before approving any more funding. I don't agree with Ed Miliband on everything – we clearly have different views on nuclear power. I respect the energy secretary's commitment to tackling climate crisis, and it is worth noting that the further subsidies are half of what was previously on offer for Drax. But that's exactly why continuing to subsidise Drax at all is so disappointing. When Miliband announced his plans to 'ramp up' biomass burning back in 2009, he was genuinely trying to find alternatives to fossil fuels. But 16 years on, this policy has gone badly astray. What was meant to be a bridge to renewable energy is actually making emissions worse. If, on Monday, the House of Lords votes to extend this unabated wood burning for another four years, what is to stop these subsidies being extended again and again? And why should the government deal with a firm as untrustworthy as Drax? Perhaps most damning is what Drax refuses to reveal. After the BBC's devastating Panorama investigation into the company's destruction of Canadian primary forests, Drax asked auditor KPMG to investigate, hoping for a clean bill of health. However, the evidence was so damning that the reports are still being hidden from the public. If Drax has nothing to hide, why not publish these reports? A former top Treasury official turned whistleblower accused it of deliberately concealing unsustainable practices to secure subsidies. The case, now settled, raises questions of dishonesty that should disqualify any company from public funding. The extra billions Drax is seeking could help build enough wind and solar capacity to power millions of homes. It could create permanent jobs in genuine renewable industries, not temporary employment destroying irreplaceable ecosystems. Every pound spent subsidising tree burning is a pound not invested in technologies that could actually deliver net zero. While other countries race ahead with wind, solar and battery storage, we're burning money on the most primitive fuel known to humanity. There's a huge loophole in the government's pledge to stop Drax burning trees from primary forest. Their restrictions on Drax only apply to subsidised electricity supplied to the grid. Drax wants to power private data centres but there is no plan that prevents it from destroying ancient forests to power 21st-century AI searches. That means Drax could be cutting down even more primary forests than it does today. MPs have lost trust in the government's ability to hold Drax to account – the criticism from parliamentary committees has been brutal. The environmental movement didn't fight to establish renewable energy so politicians could facilitate the burning of ancient forests that took millennia to grow. Real climate action means making hard choices, not hiding behind accounting tricks that make our emissions disappear on paper while making them worse in reality. It is time for Labour MPs to speak up; the fight for net zero is hard enough. More subsidies for Drax's wood burning in the name of sustainability is just more fuel on that fire. Dale Vince is a green energy industrialist and campaigner
