Civil liberties advocates have lashed the New South Wales Labor government’s attempts to stop climate activists from livestreaming protests on Facebook.

Members of Blockade Australia staged and streamed protests across the country this week, including along a train line that services the Newcastle coal port.

The premier, Chris Minns, announced via the Daily Telegraph on Thursday that he would request a meeting with the social media giant, alongside police, to see what they can do to “stop the broadcast of illegal acts”.

“Their business model relies on social media to broadcast their protest,” he said of the Blockade Australia protesters.

“These thrill demonstrators are putting lives at risk – both their own and those of emergency service and police.

“I don’t want to see a situation where there’s a death broadcast on social media.”

The opposition supported the idea, with leader and former attorney general, Mark Speakman, saying it would help deprive the protesters of attention.

“We all have a right to protest, but other people have rights as well … all those rights have to be balanced,” he said.

But independent crossbench MP Alex Greenwich said it was a “deeply concerning” development, noting the importance of protest in democracies.

“I strongly oppose those protest laws that were rushed through the parliament last year. Freedom to protest is such a fundamental right that we really need to be protecting,” he said.

The chair of Digital Rights Watch, Lizzie O’Shea, said the comments were something that she would “expect to hear from the People’s Republic of China, not from a Labor NSW premier.

“People use live streaming for very important accountability scenarios or for accountability measures, including, for example, filming violence by police all around the world. And the idea that live streaming should be prohibited when it comes to protest is profoundly anti-democratic,” she said.

O’Shea said it wasn’t clear how it could be implemented technically, or how Meta would be able to distinguish between what protests are allowed to be streamed and what would not be allowed.

Guardian Australia understands the premier has yet to formally approach Meta to discuss the idea, and had not communicated directly with the tech giant about the plan since the announcement.

The president of the NSW Council for Civil Liberties, Josh Pallas, accused the premier of attempting to shut down freedom of speech and freedom of expression.

“Trying to shut down protesters’ use of Facebook is yet another example of the way that freedom of public assembly in NSW is being attacked by successive governments,” he said.

He said interference from governments in the way protesters used Facebook would set a “precedent where private enterprises are called on to acquiesce to the will of the government of the day in stifling speech”.

The previous government introduced new laws to deal with protesters that could see them slapped with $22,000 fines or put behind bars for two years for types of protest that included disrupting or obstructing traffic on a major bridge, tunnel or road.

Minns supported the laws when in opposition.

Human Rights Watch researcher Sophie McNeill said peaceful protest was an important human right.

“You don’t respond to the climate emergency by trying to censor people protesting about it!” she said on social media.

In the face of rapidly rising rents in Australia’s capitals, the Greens are calling for the federal government to work with states on a national rent freeze to protect tenants from the “bill shock” of sudden rental increase of 20%, 30%, or more when they renew their lease.

Berlin froze rents in 2019 on apartments built before 2014. It saved that city’s renters billions before being ruled unconstitutional in 2021. Perverse supply outcomes that were promised failed to materialise, with Berlin seeing much faster new housing development than the 13 next-largest German cities in the two years of the policy.

The likely outcome of the Green’s political bargain, however, is a more modest rental regulation that smooths out rental price shocks, rather than freezing rents in place, which is something that even landlords think is a good idea.

Most states protect landlords from the “bill shock” of sudden increases in their land taxes. To smooth out costs for landlords, land values are averaged out the last three years. A sudden 30% increase in land values, for example, would normally result in a 30% or more jump in land taxes. But we have “tax controls” that instead smooth this out to 10% a year over three years. Protecting landlords from “bill shock” costs taxpayers hundreds of millions a year in forgone revenue when property prices are rising.

Second generation rent controls that limit the rate that rents can increase offer the same protection for tenants and have operated for decades in many countries like Germany, Austria, Switzerland, France and the Netherlands. Even the ACT limits rent increases to a touch above CPI for ongoing rental contracts. It is the modern tenancy standard.

Many landlords will even voluntarily smooth out rental increases for tenants over multiple years because they see the fairness of it and value tenant stability. I was a landlord for 20 years and that’s what I did. There is nothing radical here.

Yet the actions of landlord and property lobby groups against any such change to tenancy laws would have you thinking that limiting the rate of rent increases amounts to “bombing a city” as economist Assar Lindbeck described rent controls back in 1971. Supply will dry up. Landlords will sell. Houses will disappear.

In fact, some economists have gone so far as to say that rent controls will backfire and raise housing rents and prices in the future.

Call me sceptical, but landlords lobbying against a policy that will increase the value of their property in the long run seems contrary to their own financial interests. And that’s the problem – landlords make money from higher rents, so they are going to complain about policies that work to make rents lower, and support policies that don’t. They aren’t saints.

I call this pattern of property lobbying The Great Housing Contradiction. Landlords lobby against rent controls, which they say won’t make housing cheaper, and for upzoning and more competition, which they say will.

Deceptive stories and mythmaking like this is normal behaviour for interest groups.

Prior to Medicare, doctors fought against public intervention and free medical services for customers if it meant they could only charge a regulated price for their service. The taxi industry hates more competition and lower prices, arguing for more regulation, not less, to protect their monopoly.

The pharmacy industry today is lobbying to make prescriptions more expensive for the public by pushing against 60-day dispensing. Even in the 1930s depression era when building public housing emerged as a policy to support the poor and a macroeconomic stimulus tool, landlords across the US lobbied hard against the government supplying housing and competing with them for tenants. None of these groups are evil. They are just self-interested like the rest of us.

Economic studies are also weaponised to make these arguments. For example, a study of San Francisco rent control found that 15% decline in the number people in rent controlled housing after two decades, which is interpreted as some kind of decline in the supply of housing. But that was the result of a combination of half of those being renovated or redeveloped into more and better housing and half due to selling to owner-occupiers. These are both good things but can be twisted as a negative by calling them a “decline in supply”. But that doesn’t make it true. The fact that the only way to earn more rent when rents are regulated is to build more housing seems neglected.

In fact, any policy that increases home ownership must come at a cost of the “supply” of rental housing – landlords selling to owner-occupiers or owner-occupiers outbidding investor buyers if new homes, is the only way home ownership rates can rise.

There is nothing unusual about regulating rents and smoothing off shocks. It is just the economic and political power that decides who gets those luxuries, who doesn’t, and who pays.

Dr Cameron Murray is a research fellow in the Henry Halloran Trust at the University of Sydney

If you needed another reason to ditch the gas oven, yet another study is out detailing the health risks of burning the fuel inside homes — this time it’s by lifting blood cancer-linked benzene levels by 5 to 70 times that of an electric cooker.

Analysis from a team at Stanford University in the US found that a cooktop burner on high, or a gas oven set to 180 °Celsius, can raise the levels of benzene indoors to above those of secondhand tobacco smoke.

“Mean benzene emissions from gas and propane burners on high and ovens set to 350 °F [180 °C] ranged from 2.8 to 6.5 μg min–1, 10 to 25 times higher than emissions from electric coil and radiant alternatives; neither induction stoves nor the food being cooked emitted detectable benzene,” the study said.

The study also found that oven-produced benzene lingers for hours in the home and can migrate to other rooms where it can remain at above-international health benchmarks.

In bedrooms, benzene in the air was found to be five to 70 times baseline levels.

“Benzene forms in flames and other high-temperature environments, such as the flares found in oil fields and refineries. We now know that benzene also forms in the flames of gas stoves in our homes,” said study senior author Rob Jackson, the Michelle and Kevin Douglas Provostial Professor and professor of Earth system science at the Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability.

“Good ventilation helps reduce pollutant concentrations, but we found that exhaust fans were often ineffective at eliminating benzene exposure.”

The study itself analysed stoves and ovens in 87 homes while they were turned on, as opposed to leaks from turned off stoves, and was from the oven itself rather than the food being cooked.

Benzene linked to blood cancer

Benzene is linked to a range of blood cancers, including childhood leukaemia (particularly acute myeloid leukaemia) as well as acute lymphocytic leukaemia, chronic lymphocytic leukaemia, and others such as multiple myeloma and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, according to the American Cancer Society.

Shorter-term benzene exposure suppresses blood cell production which creates anaemia, while chronic benzene exposure increases the risk of blood cancers.

In 2001, an Australian study put the cost to the country of “sick buildings” at $12 billion a year.

But Australia has no national performance standards for indoor air quality and the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water openly admits that gas cookers and heaters are a problem area.

Last year experts called for imminent new rules for indoor air quality in the Medical Journal of Australia, saying the area has been a neglected “no man’s land” which regulators of different aspects of buildings and environments have avoided taking responsibility for.

“In Australia, the pre‐pandemic costs attributable to respiratory, neurological and other symptoms and illnesses arising from exposure to hazardous gases and particles (both biological and non‐biological) in the indoor environment were certainly above the $12 billion per year calculated in a 2001 study,” the authors wrote.

“A simple term for this action is “ventilation”. This is of course not a new concept: over 150 years ago, British nurse Florence Nightingale highlighted the need for ventilation “to keep the air he breathes [hospital patient] as pure as the external air without chilling him”. Even though the concept is simple, its implementation poses many challenges, as highlighted above in relation to indoor air standards in general.”

Australia behind the 8-ball on gas disconnection

Research into the health effects of gas appliances in the home all come to one sickening conclusion: gas leaks and gas burned create a toxic atmosphere indoors.

An earlier Stanford-led study showed that gas-burning stoves inside US homes leak methane at a level comparable to the carbon dioxide emissions from about 500,000 petrol-powered cars.

Carbon monoxide, particulates, nitrogen and formaldehyde are all released from gas appliances.

A recent analysis from the think tank RMI found the US gas industry knew about the health effects of indoor gas use, such as asthma, as long ago as the 1970s.

In Australia, only the ACT has banned gas connections to new homes. And after a number of instances of gas companies hiking disconnection bills, the Australian Energy Regulator capped the fees able to be charged for getting rid of house gas connections.

See also the latest report from the Grattan Institute: All-electric homes save money and emissions. New gas connections should be banned

Imagine a fleet of ageing factories operating in neighbourhoods across Australia.

On most days the smoke from their stacks is hardly noticed. But on cold days when the smog settles in the densely populated valleys and towns, doctors notice unusually high numbers of people suffering from a range of problems, especially asthma.

Air-quality researchers are called in to study the problem in more detail. They confirm that neighbourhoods with these old factories have higher concentrations of fine particles, which are toxic air pollutants.

Invisible to the naked eye, particles are inhaled deep into the lungs, enter the bloodstream and cause a range of harms throughout the body. This air pollution is linked to higher rates of heart and lung diseases, strokes, dementia and some cancers. It also increases the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes and poorer learning outcomes in children.

The researchers calculate that each year pollution from the factories causes 269 premature deaths in Sydney, 69 in Tasmania and 14 in Armidale, New South Wales.

While the factories are supposed to be built, maintained and operated to certain standards, the regulations are rarely if ever enforced. There isn’t even a central register to tell authorities how many of these factories exist, how old they are, and where they are located.

As news of this research is made public, how would the affected communities react? What might they demand of government?

Would it matter if they knew we were not talking about factories, but wood heaters? Heaters produce much of our air pollution

Every sentence of this story is true if you replace the word “factory” with “wood heater”.

Less than 10% of households own a wood heater, but burning wood for heating is the largest source of air pollution in many Australian cities and towns. While vehicle manufacturers and industry have greatly reduced emissions following tightened government regulations, domestic heating technology has not kept pace.

Today you would have to drive a diesel truck 500 kilometres to emit as much air pollution as a wood heater does in a single day. And that figure is for a wood heater that meets the current regulatory standards in Australia. Most do not.

Furthermore, wood heater pollution can be many times more severe when owners leave logs to smoulder overnight, burn poorly seasoned wood, or close down the air intake immediately after loading more wood.

Of course, particulate pollution is not all that wood heaters emit. When firewood is sourced from land clearing and illegal wood hooking, wood heaters add to net carbon dioxide and methane emissions in much the same as burning coal does because the carbon is no longer locked away in forests.

The best estimates are that less than a quarter of firewood is sourced from sustainable plantation suppliers. Even from those sources, the carbon emissions take many years to be sequestered into growing trees.

One study estimated that, if we stopped burning wood and clearing forest for heating, Australia would reduce its annual greenhouse gas emissions by 8.7 million tonnes. That’s about one-fifth of Australia’s car emissions. The benefits of electrification

Inevitably, as Australia moves towards a zero-carbon future, the electrification of domestic heating will bring widespread health and economic benefits. It will prevent hundreds of premature deaths each year.

Hospitals will benefit from a reprieve in the cooler months, enabling doctors and nurses to better cope with seasonal pneumonia and COVID-19 outbreaks. And even those outbreaks will be less severe with reduced air pollution.

Besides being healthier, Australians will enjoy much lower heating costs as a result of using technologies such as reverse-cycle air conditioners (heat pumps). Remarkably, heat pumps are up to 600% efficient. That means, for every unit of energy they consume, they generate up to six units of heating energy. Making the switch

As people learn about the impacts of wood heaters on their neighbours, friends and relatives — on pregnant women, young children and the elderly — many will make the switch.

Governments need to ensure safe and affordable heating technology is available to everyone regardless of their income.

Already, governments in the Australian Capital Territory, Tasmania and New Zealand have programs that reimburse households for the cost of replacing their wood heaters.

Buy-back schemes, home efficiency subsidies, regulation and enforcement, including property market regulation (ensuring wood heaters are removed prior to sale), and restrictions on new installations all have a role to play.

We are conducting economic modelling to determine the most cost-effective policy settings for maximising the benefits of policies to manage the problem of wood heaters.

Fire and smoke will remain important experiences for Australians. They can be savoured primarily outside the city, under bright stars, in open deserts and rugged coastlines, in beach shacks and farm cottages, and as part of Indigenous cultural practices.

One day we will look back in amazement that we once tolerated wood heaters in our cities, right next to schools, homes and hospitals. We’ll regard them in much the same way that we think of polluting factories today.

Bill Dodd, Knowledge Broker, Centre for Safe Air (NHMRC CRE), University of Tasmania; Bin Jalaludin, Conjoint Professor, School of Population Health, UNSW Sydney, and Fay Johnston, Professor, Menzies Institute for Medical Research, University of Tasmania

Australia 20 for 0 trail England 393 for 8 dec (Root 118*, Bairstow 78, Crawley 61, Lyon 4-149) by 373 runs

The first day of the 2023 Ashes started with Zak Crawley lacing Pat Cummins through cover for four, ended with Australia's openers seeing out four overs following an opportunistic declaration, and hardly paused for breath in between.

England had made clear that they would not change the approach that has brought them so much success in the last 12 months and hurtled towards 400 while scoring at five runs per over, looting 45 boundaries and playing out only two maidens all day.

After three successive Ashes series without a hundred as captain, it was Joe Root who underpinned their innings. Several outlandish shots - he twice reverse-scooped sixes over the slip cordon - interspersed a high-tempo cruise and he played late, dabbing, flicking and punching singles out to boundary-riders.

He brought up his hundred in 145 balls, clipping Nathan Lyon off his pads, then twice charged down to hit him back over his head for six in Lyon's next over. With the second new ball approaching, Ben Stokes had seen enough and called his batters in to leave David Warner and Usman Khawaja 20 minutes to survive until the close.

The Edgbaston crowd, who made themselves known to Australia's boundary-riders throughout an unbridled opening day, became part of the theatre, teeing up Stuart Broad and Ollie Robinson as they bounded in with the new ball. But both openers survived with few scares and will come back on Saturday hoping to set Australia on their way to a lead on a flat, slow pitch.

It had long been clear that this Ashes would be played at a different tempo to any other, and the first ball of the series only served to reinforce that. Eighteen months ago in Brisbane, Mitchell Starc's dismissal of Rory Burns set the tone for a tour defined by England's dismal performances; here, Crawley crunched Cummins through the off side on the up.

Cummins posted a deep backward point from the start, pre-empting England's aggression and by the third over had three men on the rope. Their value was shown in the fourth: Ben Duckett only half-committed to a cut shot, with deep backward point nullifying his opportunity for a boundary, and edged Josh Hazlewood through to Alex Carey.

Hazlewood's inclusion for his first Test since January came as a surprise, with Mitchell Starc making way after playing in the World Test Championship final at The Oval last week. But he was the pick of Australia's attack, finding some bounce on an unreceptive surface and finishing the day as their most economical bowler - even if he conceded more than four runs per over.

Lyon came on early, introduced in the 10th over as though Cummins was dangling a carrot. He started with four men out, but Crawley was in no mood to milk singles, and thrashed the final ball of his first over for four through the covers. By drinks, he had lashed Scott Boland for two further boundaries.

"Another 30 for Zak!" taunted an Australian fielder, picked up by the stump microphone, and Crawley's innings should have ended before he had reached a half-century. He stepped across to the off side looking to whip Boland into the Eric Hollies Stand at midwicket and edged a lifter through to Alex Carey - but Australia did not appeal.

He brought up his half-century off 56 balls, but had lost his partner just before. Ollie Pope, who settled into his innings after a frenetic start, lofted Lyon over mid-off but was trapped on the knee roll as he looked to whip across the line. Umpire Ahsan Raza initially gave him not out but ball-tracking confirmed the ball had pitched in line with leg stump.

England ticked over throughout the session, taking an unprecedented 54 singles before lunch - yet Australia's defensive fields were vindicated by three wickets in the first session, Crawley falling in the final over of the morning. He gloved behind as Boland found some extra bounce from a length, Australia successfully reviewing the on-field decision.

Harry Brook, facing Australia for the first time in his career, counter-punched in the afternoon, lofting Lyon over cover from the eighth ball he faced. He cut and drove Boland for two boundaries in three balls, but nearly fell in the same over: he top-edged a short, wide ball which Travis Head initially failed to pick up at deep point, then dropped as he scampered in and dived forwards.

England then lost two wickets in nine balls, leaving them 176 for 5. Brook's dismissal was a freak: he shouldered arms to Lyon and the ball ballooned up off his thigh pad to a cry of "catch it"; Carey tried to but watched it land inside the crease and spin sharply back into middle stump. He caught the next one that came his way, an outside edge from Stokes as Hazlewood angled one across him.

That brought Jonny Bairstow in for his first Test innings since September, and he survived a tight review for lbw off his first ball. But as Root cruised to a half-century without breaking sweat, Bairstow found his rhythm, slashing Cameron Green - who bowled only six overs in the day - over the off side.

Root was given out on 61 but successfully overturned the lbw decision on review, having gloved the ball into his pad. It was the second of three successive reverse-sweeps he played off Lyon; the other two flew to the boundary.

Bairstow played aggressor after tea as the partnership swelled past 100, but his dismissal for a run-a-ball 78 preceded a frantic passage of play. He and the returning Moeen Ali were both stumped off Lyon, charging down the pitch, before Broad lost his off stump to Green after hoicking a couple of fours.

Root freed his arms after ticking past his hundred, a landmark that was met with a punch of the air and a standing ovation from around the ground. This was his first hundred against Australia in eight years, with a dozen unconverted half-centuries in between times, and the 30th of his Test career.

There was enough time for him to take 20 runs off one Lyon over - along with Robinson, who reverse-swept him for four - before Stokes, wearing his bucket hat, gestured for the pair to come back in. There may never have been a day of Ashes cricket quite like it.

Linux 6.3 triggers a use-after-free inside #nouveau with the consequence of corruption kernel memory.