Large pictorial warning labels on smoked tobacco products typically feature confronting images of the harmful health outcomes of smoking.

Pictures of diseased lungs, gangrene and mouth decay aim to elicit strong emotional responses that reduce the appeal and acceptability of smoking, particularly among young people.

Warning labels also aim to increase knowledge of the many risks smoking poses. Plain packaging increases the attention paid to warning labels and reduces pack appeal, brand loyalty and product perceptions.

However, like any marketing campaign, warning labels on tobacco products need regular updating so they continue to attract attention and communicate the latest research evidence. Maintaining the same images risks “wear-out”, when people lose interest in campaign images and messages, or counter argue these.

Our recent work found existing tobacco warnings have lost impact. Study participants had created cognitive defences and exempted themselves from the risks shown.

While some still found images of diseased body parts shocking, others did not consider the illustrated risks personally relevant and thought warnings lacked credibility.

Our findings raise the important question of how we can make on-pack warnings more impactful and effective. Our new study addresses this question by exploring the lived experiences of people who smoke.

Creating more effective warnings

Many find smoking imposes a heavy financial burden on them, and others worry about the impact smoking has on whānau (families).

Others resent the hold nicotine addiction has over them and feel concerned that young people may want to adopt the behaviour they see modelled by adults who smoke.

Working with a graphic artist, we developed images and messages to represent the ideas we had heard.

After extensive review with people who smoke, we identified three potential warning themes for final testing: the cost of smoking, smoking’s impact on family, and the health risks presented in a more empathetic way (by featuring people rather than diseased body parts).

Using a choice study, we examined how well warnings representing these themes prompted thoughts of quitting compared to a novel graphic health warning showing a mouth cancer.

We found two different groups among our sample of people who smoke: one responded more strongly to warning labels emphasising the cost of smoking and its effect on families than to the graphic warning we used as a control; the other group reacted more strongly to an empathetic health warning than to the control.

5 ways to improve on-pack warnings

1. We need warnings that reflect people’s experiences of smoking, recognise smoking’s various harms, and understand that people who smoke are not a homogenous group. While most people who smoke regret smoking and hope to quit, they are at different life stages, have different backgrounds and interests, and respond to different stimuli.

For example, the cost-of-living crisis means warnings reinforcing the cost of smoking, the opportunities forgone and the impacts on others may be more motivating for some people than graphic health warnings.

2. We should think more creatively about the health harm from smoking. We found images of children losing a parent to an illness caused by smoking created strong emotional connections, as did images of adults smoking near children.

This approach, which illustrates how smoking causes emotional and physical harm to others, was at least as effective as the graphic mouth cancer image we used as a control.

3. We should consider the impact of warnings on emotions. Early graphic warnings aimed to arouse fear, in the belief it would galvanise attempts to quit. However, people who smoke also experience regret and shame, which may be more motivating than fear.

4. We need to balance negative emotions, which may stigmatise people and lead them to feel powerless, by introducing pack inserts with positive messages. Our work found that offering helpful advice and outlining the benefits of quitting inspired participants and could support attempts to quit.

5. We need to refresh and rotate warnings much more often. We suggest new warnings should be introduced every six months and that no warning should run for longer than a year.

On-pack pictorial warnings are a proven best-practice approach to encouraging smoking cessation. However, failure to introduce new and more diverse warnings has compromised the impact these have.

Given people who smoke consume, on average, ten cigarettes a day, on-pack warnings have high potential exposure. We should be making this measure as effective as possible and embed it within a comprehensive strategy that will reduce tobacco’s addictiveness, appeal and accessibility.

Janet Hoek, Professor in Public Health, University of Otago; Andrew Waa, Associate Professor in Public Health, University of Otago; Lani Teddy, Research Fellow in Public Health, University of Otago, and Philip Gendall, Senior Research Fellow in Marketing, University of Otago

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Just for a moment this week, Larry Ellison, co-founder of US cloud computing company Oracle, became the world’s richest person.

The octogenarian tech titan briefly overtook Elon Musk after Oracle’s share price rocketed 43% in a day, adding about US$100 billion (A$150 billion) to his wealth.

The reason? Oracle inked a deal to provide artificial intelligence (AI) giant OpenAI with US$300 billion (A$450 billion) in computing power over five years.

While Ellison’s moment in the spotlight was fleeting, it also illuminated something far more significant: AI has created extraordinary levels of concentration in global financial markets.

This raises an uncomfortable question not only for seasoned investors – but also for everyday Australians who hold shares in AI companies via their superannuation. Just how exposed are even our supposedly “safe”, “diversified” investments to the AI boom?

The man who built the internet’s memory

As billionaires go, Ellison isn’t as much of a household name as Tesla and SpaceX’s Musk or Amazon’s Jeff Bezos. But he’s been building wealth from enterprise technology for nearly five decades.

Ellison co-founded Oracle in 1977, transforming it into one of the world’s largest database software companies. For decades, Oracle provided the unglamorous but essential plumbing that kept many corporate systems running.

The AI revolution changed everything. Oracle’s cloud computing infrastructure, which helps companies store and process vast amounts of data, became critical infrastructure for the AI boom.

Every time a company wants to train large language models or run machine learning algorithms, they need huge amounts of computing power and data storage. That’s precisely where Oracle excels.

When Oracle reported stronger-than-expected quarterly earnings this week, driven largely by soaring AI demand, its share price spiked.

That response wasn’t just about Oracle’s business fundamentals. It was about the entire AI ecosystem that has been reshaping global markets since ChatGPT’s public debut in late 2022.

The great AI concentration

Oracle’s story is part of a much larger phenomenon reshaping global markets. The so-called “Magnificent Seven” tech stocks – Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet, Amazon, Meta, Tesla and Nvidia – now control an unprecedented share of major stock indices.

Year-to-date in 2025, these seven companies have come to represent approximately 39% of the US S&P500’s total value. For the tech-heavy NASDAQ100, the figure is a whopping 74%.

This means if you invest in an exchange-traded fund that tracks the S&P500 index, often considered the gold standard of diversified investing, you’re making an increasingly concentrated bet on AI, whether you realise it or not.

Are we in an AI ‘bubble’?

This level of concentration has not been seen since the late 1990s. Back then, investors were swept up in “dot-com mania”, driving technology stock prices to unsustainable levels.

When reality finally hit in March 2000, the tech-heavy Nasdaq crashed 77% over two years, wiping out trillions in wealth.

Today’s AI concentration raises some similar red flags. Nvidia, which controls an estimated 90% of the AI chip market, currently trades at more than 30 times expected earnings. This is expensive for any stock, let alone one carrying the hopes of an entire technological revolution.

Yet, unlike the dot-com era, today’s AI leaders are profitable companies with real revenue streams. Microsoft, Apple and Google aren’t cash-burning startups. They are established giants, using AI to enhance existing businesses while generating substantial profits.

This makes the current situation more complicated than a simple “bubble” comparison. The academic literature on market bubbles suggests genuine technological innovation often coincides with speculative excess.

The question isn’t whether AI is transformative; it clearly is. Rather, the question is whether current valuations reflect realistic expectations about future profitability.

Hidden exposure for many Australians

For Australians, the AI concentration problem hits remarkably close to home through our superannuation system.

Many balanced super fund options include substantial allocations to international shares, typically 20–30% of their portfolios.

When your super fund buys international shares, it’s often getting heavy exposure to those same AI giants dominating US markets.

The concentration risk extends beyond direct investments in tech companies. Australian mining companies, such as BHP and Fortescue, have become indirect AI players because their copper, lithium and rare earth minerals are essential for AI infrastructure.

Even diversifying away from technology doesn’t fully escape AI-related risks. Research on portfolio concentration shows when major indices become dominated by a few large stocks, the benefits of diversification diminish significantly.

If AI stocks experience a significant correction or crash, it could disproportionately impact Australians’ retirement nest eggs.

A reality check

This situation represents what’s called “systemic concentration risk”. This is a specific form of systemic risk where supposedly diversified investments become correlated through common underlying factors or exposures.

It’s reminiscent of the 2008 financial crisis, when seemingly separate housing markets across different regions all collapsed simultaneously. That was because they were all exposed to subprime mortgages with high risk of default.

This does not mean anyone should panic. But regulators, super fund trustees and individual investors should all be aware of these risks. Diversification only works if returns come from a broad range of companies and industries.

Angel Zhong, Professor of Finance, RMIT University and Jason Tian, Senior Lecturer, Swinburne University of Technology

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese sought to strengthen security ties with Pacific island nations and counter China’s growing influence during a trip to the region this week.

If he walks away with one lesson, it’s that Australia’s climate policy remains a significant sticking point.

The main purpose of Albanese’s visit was to attend annual leaders’ talks known as the Pacific Islands Forum. On the way, Albanese stopped in Vanuatu hoping to sign a security agreement – but he couldn’t ink the deal.

I am in the Solomon Islands this week to observe the talks. I saw firsthand that Australia clearly has its work cut out in its quest to lead regional security – and our climate credibility is key.

Pacific countries say unequivocally that climate change – which is bringing stronger cyclones, coastal inundation and bleached coral reefs – is their single greatest threat. If Australia’s geo-strategic jostling is to work, we must show serious commitment to curbing the dangers of a warming planet.

Australia’s strategy tested in the Solomons

The location of this year’s talks – Solomon Islands’ capital, Honiara – is a stark reminder of Australia’s geopolitical stakes amid rising Chinese influence in the region.

The Solomon Islands signed a security deal with China in 2022, which set alarm bells ringing in Canberra. Penny Wong – then opposition foreign minister – described it as the worst failure of Australian foreign policy in the Pacific since World War II.

Since then, the Albanese government has sought to firm up Australia’s place as security partner for Pacific countries by pursuing bilateral security agreements with island nations. So far, it has completed deals with Tuvalu, Papua New Guinea and Nauru.

On his way to the Solomon Islands, Albanese stopped in Vanuatu hoping to sign a security agreement which reportedly included A$500 million over ten years to address worsening climate impacts. But that deal was postponed. Members of Vanuatu’s coalition government were reportedly concerned about wording that could limit infrastructure funding from other countries, including China.

Albanese had more success in Honiara, where he advanced talks with Fiji’s Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka for a new bilateral security pact.

Working with island nations to tackle climate change has become key to Australian strategy in the region. This week Albanese also joined Pacific leaders to ratify a regional fund intended to help island communities access international finance to help adapt to climate impacts. Australia has already pledged $100 million for the project, known as the Pacific Resilience Facility.

Australia is bidding to host the COP31 United Nations climate talks in partnership with Pacific countries in 2026. Pacific leaders formally restated support for Australia’s bid this week.

Palau President Surangel Whipps Jr said an Australia-Pacific COP had broad support from the rest of the world:

We deserve to host COP31, and given the breadth and depth of support, it would be seen as an act of good faith if others would clear the way. We don’t want to let this major international opportunity slip by us.

Whipps also championed an initiative for the Pacific to become the world’s first region to be powered 100% by renewable energy.

Pacific Island countries spend up to 25% of their GDP on importing fossil fuels for power generation and transport. As the costs of renewable energy and battery storage quickly fall, Pacific countries could save billions of dollars by making the clean energy shift.

Albanese this week appeared to acknowledge regional concerns about climate change, saying taking action was “the entry fee, if you like, to credibility in the Pacific”.

But the real test is whether Albanese can follow words with meaningful action.

The work starts at home

Albanese’s Pacific visit comes amid heightened scrutiny of Australia’s efforts to curb emissions.

The government must set Australia’s 2035 emissions reduction target this month. The latest reports suggest the commitment may be less ambitious than Pacific leaders, and many others, would like.

Pacific leaders also expect Albanese to curb fossil fuel production for export. Australia’s biggest contribution to climate change comes from coal and gas exports, which add more than double the climate pollution of Australia’s entire national economy.

However, in coming days the federal government is expected to approve Woodside’s extension of gas production at the Northwest Shelf facility off Western Australia, out to 2070. The decision could lock in more than 4 billion tonnes of climate pollution – equivalent to a decade of Australia’s annual emissions.

All this comes in the wake of a landmark legal ruling in July this year, when the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued an advisory opinion confirming countries have legal responsibilities for climate harms caused by fossil fuel exports.

Vanuatu led the legal campaign. In Honiara this week, Vanuatu’s climate minister Ralph Regenvanu reiterated that Australia must heed the ruling, saying:

The advisory opinion of the ICJ made it clear that going down the path of fossil fuel production expansion is an internationally wrongful act under international law. The argument Australia has been making that the domestic transition is sufficient under the Paris Agreement is untenable. You’ve got to deal with fossil fuel exports as well.

Albanese may have taken on board some of the Pacific’s concern about climate – and made a little progress at this week’s Pacific Islands Forum. But there is work to do if Australia is to be seen as a credible security partner in the Pacific – and that work starts at home.

Wesley Morgan, Research Associate, Institute for Climate Risk and Response, UNSW Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.