Ecosystem Change and Human Well-being

Here is a new report called "Ecosystem Change and Human Well-being: Research and Monitoring Priorities Based on the Findings of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment". It was put together by the International Council for Science, UNESCO and the United Nations University.

Here are the key quotes:

"The MA has involved the work of more than 1360 experts woldwide. Their findings, contained in five technical volumes and six synthesis reports, provide a state of the art scientific appraisal of the condition and trends in the world's ecosystems and the services they provide (such as clean water, food, forest products, flood control, and natural resources) and the options to restore, conserve or enhance the sustainable use of ecosystems.

The bottom line of the MA findings was that human actions are depleting Earth's natural capital, putting such strain on the environment that the ability of the planet's ecosystems to sustain future generations can no longer be taken for granted.

At the same time, the assessment shows that with appropriate actions it is possible to reverse the degradation of many ecosystem services over the next 50 years, but the changes in policy and practice required are substantial and not currently underway."

Hmmm. We need to get changes in policy underway NOW; but climate change, for example, is a very difficult policy issue indeed and will take some time to get up going and then to get it 'right.' But with possible climate tipping points in play, the clock is ticking.

Please check out this report! (Even if it is only the executive summary).

It begins with an introduction to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and the conceptual framework used in the assessment. It then goes on to cover humans influence on ecosystems; the relationship between changes in human well-being and changes in ecosystems; improving capabilities of predicting consequences of changes in drivers; mechanisms for the sustainable use of ecosystems; monitoring and data; improving mechanisms whereby knowledge can most effectively contribute to decision-making; and lastly, a new research agenda.

"It is important that mechanisms are developed to ensure that the science agenda can be developed in a participatory manner involving relevant stakeholders as well as ensuring that platforms for dialogue exist to ensure that scientific knowledge can inform decision - and policy making.

The report proposes the development of a new 10 year research program - Humans, ecosystems and Well-being (HEW) - with a mission to foster coordinated research to understand the dynamic relationship between humans and ecosystems.

There will be a regional focus with a few research sites, where multidisciplinary teams of scientists will undertake research guided by a common protocol within the context of the MA conceptual framework.

At the global scale, the focus will be on global drivers of change in ecosystem services and the implications of such change on multiple scales bridging the global and the local/regional scales."

This is music to my ears!!

Firstly - the "participatory" nature suggested for science development and policy is exactly what I think is needed (e.g. for issues such as nanotechnology and climate change policy).

Secondly, the HEW project sounds fantastic! I mean, anything with "a mission to foster coordinated research to understand the dynamic relationship between humans and ecosystems" - one of my favourite areas of interest - has got to be worth finding out more about. Doesn't that sound good, environmental sociologists, I mean you.

Thirdly, I just love the last bit - "the focus will be on global drivers of change in ecosystem services and the implications of such change on multiple scales bridging the global and the local/regional scales". Big picture stuff and also bring it down to the local level. Has it all. Love it.

I will be definatley be reading more of this report tonight. Especially the new research agenda section (part 8) which hopefully suggests LOTS of social science input and improved public participation in both the direction of science and policy.

Anyway, I suggest you check it out if you are interested in this sort of stuff.

Full Report here

** If you enjoyed this post please also check out:
.
Some interesting podcasts on climate change
.
Communicating Climate Change
.
Splitting: 'jobs' versus 'the environment'

.
New Green Jobs ??

.

Boost the economy and tackle poverty at the same time
.
COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOME !!
.
So please, tell us what you think.

Earth Hour is on today (28th March 2009)

.

Here is some information on Earth Hour (which began in Sydney, Australia - two years ago) from Julia Marton-Lefevre (Director General, IUCN) that came through the climate-l listserve today. So don't forget at 8-30pm local time to turn off your lights for 1 hour.
.

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

.

I’m writing to invite you to join a global environmental action to voice our collective concern about climate change and to show world leaders we are serious about securing a Global Deal on climate in less than 11 months time. On Saturday, 28 March, at 8.30pm local time, cities and towns across the world will turn off their lights for one hour – Earth Hour – sending a powerful message to decision makers that we want an international agreement to reduce global warming by the next UN climate meeting in Copenhagen in December 2009. It is hoped that Earth Hour 2009 will produce the largest-ever groundswell of public support. One billion people in more than 1,000 cities, including businesses, governments and communities, are expected to participate. They will call for firm commitments to combat climate change, which are vital to the future of our planet. Taking the first step is as easy as turning off a light. Encouraging others – entire cities, multinational corporations and people around the world – to perform this simple act for just one hour, makes it possible for everyone to participate. This is why IUCN is supporting Earth Hour, and is asking all of our members to join us in this important action. Earth Hour is being led by WWF, and we will coordinate closely with them and other partners to make this a truly global effort. Two years ago, Earth Hour began in one city, in one country, when more than 2.2 million households and businesses in Sydney turned off their lights for one hour. Last year, Earth Hour reached 370 cities and towns in more than 35 countries across 18 time zones, and the campaign shifted from a Sydney event to a global sustainability movement. Earth Hour 2009 will be even bigger because the threats posed by unchecked climate change are escalating, along with people’s concern. We need every individual, government and business to play a part. Earth Hour provides a constructive platform for engaging these stakeholders and demonstrates the impact we can have when we act together. I hope you will join us in participating in an Earth Hour 2009 event taking place near you, or consider sponsoring one of your own if there is not one already planned. For more information, visit www.earthhour.org and help world leaders see the light on climate by taking action on 28 March.

Thank you and best regards,

Julia Marton-Lefèvre

Director General, IUCN

.

.

** If you enjoyed this post please also check out:
.
Gambling with climate change
.
Americans and climate change
.
Splitting: 'jobs' versus 'the environment'

.

New Green Jobs ??

.

Van Jones to advise Obama on 'Green Jobs'.

COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOME !!
.
So please, tell us what you think.

Towards a Global Green Recovery

Here is a new report put out by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and the London School of Economics and Politics's Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.

It is called 'Towards a Global Green Recovery - Recommendations for Immediate G20 Action'. It was jointly written by a team led by Ottmar Edenhofer and Nick Stern.

The report highlights key measures in seven strategic areas that G20 members can take to tackle the economic crisis and re-orient development towards sustainable, low-carbon growth.

The seven areas are:

1. Improve energy efficiency
2. Upgrade physical infrastructure
3. Support clean-technology markets
4. Initiate flagship projects
5. Enhance international R&D
6. Incentivise investment
7. Co-ordinate G20 efforts

Well worth a look. The full report is available for download at: http://www.pik-potsdam.de/globalgreenrecovery

** If you enjoyed this post please also check out:
.
Gambling with climate change
.
Americans and climate change
.
Splitting: 'jobs' versus 'the environment'

.
New Green Jobs ??

.

Van Jones to advise Obama on 'Green Jobs'.

COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOME !!
.
So please, tell us what you think.

"Emission reductions by the USA in 2020 and the risk of exceeding 2°C warming"

Here is the executive summary of a new report by Bill Hare, Michiel Schaeffer and Malte Meinshausen called "Emission reductions by the USA in 2020 and the risk of exceeding 2°C warming". If you are wondering why I included the pic above, just read down to the conclusions they made.

Executive Summary

This report examines the relationship between the level of emission reductions to be undertaken by the United States by 2020 and the risk of exceeding a 2° Celsius (3.6° Fahrenheit) warming globally in the coming century, within the context of a new international agreement on climate change to be adopted at Copenhagen in 2009.

International negotiations are focusing on a reduction range for Annex I countries as a group of 25-40% below 1990 levels by 2020 and for Non Annex I countries of a 15-30% reduction relative to business as usual growth by the same time.

The level of action by the United States is a very significant political variable in the Copenhagen climate negotiations and is likely to influence the level of ambition for the entire agreement. A stronger level of action by the USA would likely lead to more action from others, and vice versa. A delay in achieving emission reductions consistent with the 25-40% Annex I reductions would likely lead to delay by others. It is in this context that the Administration of President Obama faces difficult dilemmas. Under the previous Bush Administration very little was done to limit greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and by 2006 they were some 14% above 1990 levels, making a reduction to the 25-40% below 1990 levels within little more than a decade a very difficult task. President Obama has indicated that the United States should reduce its domestic emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, and to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. Recently the US Special Climate Envoy Todd Stern argued that meeting the 25-40% reduction target range from 1990 levels by 2020 for the Annex I countries can be deferred, and faster reductions in the post 2020 period can make up for slower reductions to 2020.

We address the consequence of different levels of action by the USA by focusing on two questions:

* The relationship between different global emission levels, Annex I reductions and reduced growth in non-Annex I emissions by 2020, and the risk (probability) of exceeding a global 2°C warming above pre-industrial.

* Whether a delay in reaching the 25-40% range of emission reductions from 1990 levels by 2020 for industrialized (Annex I) countries can be made up with steeper emission reductions to 2050.
.
This is evaluated by examining the changes in the risk of exceeding a global 2°C warming.
.
On these questions we reached two broad conclusions:

* Higher emissions in 2020 resulting from delayed action by Annex I countries, degrades the ability to meet the 2°C warming limit. If global emissions were to return to the level of 1990 by the year 2020, the chance that 2°C warming is exceeded is estimated as roughly 1 in 6, which rises to 1 in 4, if global emissions are still 40% above 1990 in 2020.

* Delaying emission reductions by the Annex I group by 10 years, from 2020 to 2030, results in significantly higher cumulative greenhouse gas emissions and increases the rate of emission reduction in future decades. The probability of exceeding 2°C warming is increased by about 15% for such a delay, from a base probability for the two non-delay scenarios of 14% (6% to 32%) and 27% (14% to 48%), respectively. A delay thus results in an increased risk that is not compensated for by steeper reductions in later years.

.
The full report can be downloaded from:
.
http://www.climateanalytics.org/ under Publications
. .
** If you enjoyed this post please also check out:
.
Gambling with climate change: MIT updates its climate gamble wheels
.
Americans and climate change
.
Splitting: 'jobs' versus 'the environment'

.
New Green Jobs ??

.

Van Jones to advise Obama on 'Green Jobs'.

COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOME !!
.
So please, tell us what you think.

Nanotechnology - Updated

Some of my thoughts on nanotechnology:
.

When it comes to nanotechnolgy, there are both possible benefits and risks involved. Those that are pro-science tend to push the benefits and those that are against science tend to push the risks of nanotechnology and nanoproducts. So, what should society do about nanotechnology? First, the benefits and then the risks of nanotechnology. Finally, I will make some conclusions.
.
Benefits of nanotechnology:
.
Nanotechnology is already being used in many applications. For example, in modern medicine, nanotechnology is being used for fluorescent biological labels, drug and gene delivery, tissue engineering and MRI contrast enhancement. The benefits of these improved medical diagnostic methods and treatment options could be huge for those that are sick with a range of illnesses and diseases such as cancer. Those that support nanotechnology suggest the amazing possibilities of nanotechnology are almost endless.
.
Strong proponents believe that, with further research and development, nanotechnology could be used to help solve a wide range of massive environmental and social problems including: climate change; water/air pollution; and even world hunger. However, the hype and marketing surrounding nanotechnology makes it difficult to separate what is technically possible and what may one day be available.
.
It is also important to consider who will benefit. Can people access or even afford it when they may need it? Who owns, and therefore profits and controls nanotechnology? Much of the debate coming from the global 'South' in climate change, centres around the need for technology transfer, but will nanotechnology solutions be shared?
.
Risks of nanotechnology:
.
Consider the case of the nanosock which has nanosilver particles in them to prevent bacteria and foot odor. Preliminary results from research being conducted by Troy Benn (an Arizona State University doctoral student) were presented at the American Chemical Societies 2008 conference. The research found that nanosilver particles would come out of the sock in the wash and therefore be released into the environment. This raises serious issues, such as what happens when bacteria killing particles are released into the environment? Science cannot yet answer that question adequately so we should remember the precautionary principle and be very careful until we can.
.
New nanoproducts should be tested for safety before going onto the market, but currently the risk research lags behind the new products (as we are only beginning to 'see' some of the risks of nanotechnology).
.
Molecular nanotechnology may allow the creation of self-replicating machines and the problem of ‘grey goo’.
.
Nanoweapons could be created, given almost half of all scientific research is for military purposes, there is a good chance that researchers will look towards nanoweapons that could deliver bioweapons – like a nanobot mosquito with a nasty toxin such as botulism). The development of nanoweapons could lead to a nanotechnology arms race, between nanotechnology superpowers or even smaller rogue states or terrorist group. There could be a large number of states with nanoweapons and because of there size they would be difficult to find and easy to smuggle which means they could be easily transported. There is also the possibility that a black-market for banned nanomachines could occur and because of the size of future nanomachines, it would be difficult to find them.
.
Microscopic surveillance devices raise serious privacy concerns because individuals, governments or businesses could misuse them and it would be very difficult to deal with negative antisocial uses of the technology e.g. hidden cameras in private places such as bathrooms, or used for industrial or government espionage.
.
Nanotechnology could have unintended consequences that could cause serious harm to society or the environment. Technocratic science has ‘blind-spots’ that result from its disciplinary and reductionist nature. These blind-spots could include unanticipated new illnesses, unintended negative environmental effects or major negative social change. These unintended consequences could also cause the public to lose of confidence in nanotechnology and this could effect funding.
.
A lack of effective regulations to deal with the unintended consequences of nanotechnology could allow dangerous risks to be placed upon society. I believe a precautionary approach is therefore needed. It is also important to consider who owns and controls the technology, and who can have access to it (when and where it is needed).
.
Having said all this - scientists actually working in fields of nanotechnology and nanoscience are increasingly aware of both the possible benefits and the possible problems. The example of genetically modified food has demonstrated to many scientists, some of the possible battles ahead. Good policy needs to stear through the minefield of the different assumptions and views on 'science' itself.
.
Will the public trust nanoscience if it is found being used for weapons or polluting the environment? What if it is providing much joy and saving many lives?Many governments (including the US Government, the European Union and the Australian Government) have began to investigate the question of what should society do with nanotechnology.
.
In conclusion, because there are many different values and worldviews in our society (e.g. anthropocentric, ecocentric and ecofeminism) and these values and worldviews are often conflicting, there is no one correct way of answering all the difficult questions (e.g. social, ethical and environmental) raised by rapidly progressing nanotechnology.
.
Therefore, there needs to be a dialogue between all the key stakeholders, rather than a narrow group of experts. In order for the public to gain some control over the technology (Habermas question), they need to be involved in the problem definition, problem framing, discussing of options, etc. It must be a bottom-up rather than the typical top-down decision (leave it to the 'experts' i.e. scientists and economists).
.
This could be achieved using a citizen’s jury (as they did with the UK nanojury). This is needed because nanotechnology has the potential to affect almost all aspects of modern society, so all people have a stake in their future and should help decide what risks they are prepared to take rather than having them thrust upon them without been consulted.

.

by Random Man (2008)

.
Comments most welcome, what do you all think about nanotechnology??
.
For more on nanotechnology see:
.
History of Nanotechnology
.
What is nanotechnology?
.
** If you enjoyed this post please also check out:
.
Some interesting podcasts on climate change
.
Communicating Climate Change
.
Splitting: 'jobs' versus 'the environment'

.
New Green Jobs ??

.

Boost the economy and tackle poverty at the same time
.
COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOME !!
.
So please, tell us what you think.

Boiled Alive

Prince Charles is currently in the Amazon trying to raise awareness on climate change.
.
He said:

“The trouble is it's the old boiled frog syndrome. You can’t tell if you are in the water that it is gradually heating up. You just get used to the heat and you don’t notice until suddenly it reaches boiling point and it’s too late to do anything about it”.

.
Source here

.
** If you enjoyed this post please also check out:
.
Some interesting podcasts on climate change
.
Communicating Climate Change
.
Splitting: 'jobs' versus 'the environment'

.
National Teach-In on Global Warming

.

Danger Zone
.
COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOME !!
.
So please, tell us what you think.

Can Sydney adapt to climate change?

Here is an interesting report, that was put out recently as part of a project to assess the adaptive capacities of the coastal councils of Sydney (in the face of climate change). It is a long report - but worth a look if you are interested in climate change adaption at the local level - it contains plenty of examples and information from case-studies on the many barriers that were faced (and more importantly some suggestions on how to overcome them) and also the many opportunities available.
.
Here is how the project is describe on their web-page:
.
"Systems Approach to Regional Climate Change Adaptation Strategies in Metropolises project is developing and testing an integrated, systems approach to assisting the fifteen Sydney Coastal Councils Group (SCCG) Member Councils in assessing their vulnerability to climate change and the barriers and opportunities associated with adaptation at the Local Government scale."

.
It finds there are 6 broad 'adaption streams' for increasing capacity of local councils:

1. Know your enemy - enhancing understanding regarding existing and future climate hazards and social and ecological vulnerability.
2. Plan for change - incorporating climate change into existing and novel Local Government planning frameworks.
   
3. Get smart - implementing education and outreach programs to increase the knowledge of Council and the broader community with respect to climate change, vulnerability and adaption.
   
4. Act, watch and learn - implementing monitoring, evaluation and reprting measures for Local Government to track outcomes with respect to policies and measures associated with climate change.
   
5. Put the house in order - developing both internal and external institutional arrangements that build capacity within and across Councils and other levels of government.
   
6. Money Talks - enhancing revenue streams to councils to assist in financing adaption and cost-sharing mechanisms to spread the burden among multiple tiers of government.
   

.
More information about the project is available here.
.
Link to the report available at: Case Studies of Adaptive Capacity
.
** If you enjoyed this post please also check out:
.
Changing Sydney (1975-2002)
.
Splitting: 'jobs' versus 'the environment'.
.
New Green Jobs ??
..
Boost the economy and tackle poverty at the same time

.

Combating Climate Change and Boosting Growth Are Natural Allies

.

Gambling with climate change
.
COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOME !!
.
So please, tell us what you think.

Van Jones to advise Obama on 'Green Jobs'

Van Jones, the author of The Green Collar Economy (2008), will help advise Barack Obama on green jobs. His main argument ('solution') is that the creation of green jobs can fix the two biggest problems currently facing the world (which he calls the "economic catastophy" and the "climate crisis").

.
Obama drafts Van Jones as Green Jobs Advisor
March 10, 2009
U.S. News
.
Van Jones will be joining the Obama administration next week as a special adviser on green jobs, reported the White House Council on Environmental Quality today. Jones will work with agencies and departments to advance the administration's climate and energy initiatives, with a special focus on improving vulnerable communities, according to a White House statement.

"The only reason that we have the unsustainable accounting that we have right now is because incinerators, dumping grounds, and sacrifice zones were put where poor people live. It would never have been allowed if you had to put all the incinerators and nasty stuff in rich people's neighborhoods; we'd have had a sustainable economy a long time ago... We don't want to be first and worst with all the toxins and all the negative effects of global warming, and then benefit last and least from all the breakthroughs in solar, wind energy, organic food, all the positives. We want an equal share, an equitable share, of the work wealth and the benefits of the transition to a green economy."

"We could power the country with clean coal, or we could have unicorns pull our cars for us."

"If women are making 75 cents to a dollar in our green economy, something is wrong with it"




** If you enjoyed this post please also check out:
.
New Green Jobs ??
.
Communicating Climate Change
.
Splitting: 'jobs' versus 'the environment'

.
Combating Climate Change and Boosting Growth Are Natural Allies

.
Americans and climate change

.
COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOME !!
.
So please, tell us what you think.

Pit-Stop Poznan

Here is a great new paper called "Pit-Stop Poznan" (by Santarius et al, 2009) that has just come out, on the recent United Nations climate change conference (that was held in Poland in December 2008) and the international negiotations that went on. It is interesting to read (with the upcoming - December 2009 - UN climate conference in Copenhagen (COP15) in mind).
.
Here is the abstract:
.
The paper analyzes the international climate negotiations that took place at the 14th Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC (COP) and the 4th Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP) held in Poznan, December 1-12, 2008. It works out the main issues at stake in the negotiations, contrasts divergences in interests amongst negotiating Parties, and summarizes the main results achieved in Poznan. Furthermore, it contextualizes the Poznan negotiations within the broader political and economic context, which has shaped climate policy making throughout 2008. The paper ends with an outlook on the tasks ahead in 2009, until the next COP/CMP in December 2009 in Copenhagen.
.
In the summary, the authors suggest that we are caught in a 'climate trap':
.
"this is where parties are caught in a vicious circle of their own making: without clear leadership by the developed countries, developing countries are not going to contribute; but without significant contributions by the developing world, in particular by rapidly industrializing countries, real ambition on the side of the US and other industrial countries is impossible to achieve. The North cannot solve the problem without the South, but the South will only contribute if the North demonstrates clear leadership and provides adequate support." (page 22)
.
How do they suggest we escape the 'climate trap'?
.
"Getting out of the 'climate trap' requires a new understanding of the deep interconnectedness between the interests and fates of South and North. Climate change is not a zero-sum game but an endeavour where all sides will either win or lose together." (page 22)
.
Full paper available here.

.
** If you enjoyed this post please also check out:
.
Some interesting podcasts on climate change
.
Communicating Climate Change
.
A Brief Analysis of COP 14 & COP/MOP 4

.
Summary of Poznań Climate Change Conference

.

Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation in Development Programs
.
COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOME !!
.
So please, tell us what you think.

'Heat on the Hill' - Four Corners

I watched the program called 'Heat on the Hill' (on Four Corners last night). The program is described on their webpage as:
.
On the eve of the government's release of its controversial climate change legislation, reporter Liz Jackson investigates the relentless lobbying campaign conducted by environmentalists and industry over the past 12 months. Both sides are unhappy and the government is feeling the heat.
.

It was well worth watching because it highlights the fierce ongoing debate around climate change and what is the 'best way forward'. 'Heat on the Hill' includes interviews with:

• Ross Garnaut: economist (Garnaut Climate Change Report);
• John Conner: the CEO of The Climate Institute;
• Penny Wong: the Federal Minister for Climate Change and Water; and
  
• Mitchell Hook: the Chief Executive from the Minerals Council of Australia.
  

The program is available to watch online here.
.
Also available are extended interviews and a full transcript of the program.
.
** If you enjoyed this post please also check out:
.
Some interesting podcasts on climate change
.
Communicating Climate Change
.
Splitting: 'jobs' versus 'the environment'

.
National Teach-In on Global Warming

.

Danger Zone
.
COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOME !!
.
So please, tell us what you think.

Climate Change Lobbyists

It looks like the amount of 'hot air' in Washington is increasing at more than 300%. If you said its because of climate change, you would be on the right track. In the past 5 years, the number of lobbyists pushing their views/opinions on climate change has increased by more than 300% (according to analysis by the Centre for Public Integrity).

But while the Obama team readies to take on the global warming challenge, the special interests that seek to derail, blunt, or tailor any new climate policy to their narrow agendas have already gathered in staggering numbers. A Center for Public Integrity analysis of Senate lobbying disclosure forms shows that more than 770 companies and interest groups hired an estimated 2,340 lobbyists to influence federal policy on climate change in the past year, as the issue gathered momentum and came to a vote on Capitol Hill. That’s an increase of more than 300 percent in the number of lobbyists on climate change in just five years, and means that Washington can now boast more than four climate lobbyists for every member of Congress. It also means that 15 percent of all Washington lobbyists spent at least some of their time on global warming in 2008, based on a tally of the total number of influence-peddlers on Capitol Hill by the Center for Responsive Politics.

Now have a look at the graph (below) to see of the number of lobbyists and their growth by sector. Source here.

** If you enjoyed this post please also check out:
.
Some interesting podcasts on climate change
.
Communicating Climate Change
.
Splitting: 'jobs' versus 'the environment'

.

Combating Climate Change and Boosting Growth Are Natural Allies

.

Climate Change Game
.
COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOME !!
.
So please, tell us what you think.

Danger Zone

I watched a fantastic program on SBS last night called Danger Zone which asks the question "Will the risk of extreme weather change how we live?". The program discusses the increasing risks from climate change (e.g. more intense bush fires or more intense cyclones) in the wake of the recent Victorian bush fires and the flooding in Queensland. It is good to see these issues being discussed broadly - rather than the often narrow one dimensional framing seen in the media (e.g. 'trees ' versus 'safety').

Here is the blurb (from their website):

Where will it be safe to live as Australia's temperatures rise?

In the wake of the devastating Victorian bushfires, Insight asks whether extreme weather events will force us to change the way we live.

Australian climate scientists are warning there could be more bushfires in the south and more intense cyclones in the north. Some of our major cities are at risk.

As many Victorians wrestle with how to rebuild their communities, Insight asks how well prepared the rest of us are for extreme events like cyclones and bushfires, and which parts of Australia are most at risk.

Join us live from Melbourne as we talk to survivors of the recent bushfires, as well as cyclone victims, local councils, weather experts and building advisors about what to do next.

I will have another close look at this program tonight as I am very interested in the different types of risk presented in the show. Consider the differences between scientific risk assessment; insurance risk assessment (e.g. unwilling to insure for storm surge because the risk is too high); political risks (politicians are never far from a disaster); climate change risks (will be different for different people e.g. farmer on Murray Darling River versus homeowner in Cairns); individual risk perceptions (based on how they 'see' their own environment); and the various views on government regulations (and their effectiveness) to reduce risk (just think of OHS rules at work).

Classic humans 'against' nature issues. It is aso interesting to think about the ideas of 'place attachment' and 'community attachment' when watching this program (I have just finished reading a great paper on these two constructs).

5 stars - well worth a watch here !!

Also available is the program to watch here

Full transcript here

UPDATE: check out the Climate Institute's report on "Bush Fire Weather in Southeast Australia" available here. The FFDI was interesting, see below from the report:

Fire risk is quantified using the Forest Fire Danger Index (FFDI). This index was developed in the late-1960s to help foresters connect the weather to the expected fire behaviour. To quantify "fire weather" temperature, relative humidity and wind speed are combined with an estimate of the so called 'drought factor' which depends on daily rainfall and the period of time elapsed since the last rain. . . ratings are "low", "medium", "high", "very high" and extreme". . . in the report the Bushfire CRC, the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO also examined two additional, unofficial fire danger ratings categories. These are "very extreme" (with FFDI >75) and "catastrophic" (with FFDI > 100).

** If you enjoyed this post please also check out:
.
Australia's bush fires: 'natural' disaster or 'arson'? How about climate change?

A comparison of The Limits to Growth with 30 years of reality
.
Splitting: 'jobs' versus 'the environment

.

Combating Climate Change and Boosting Growth Are Natural Allies

.

Gambling with climate change: MIT updates its climate gamble wheels
.
COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOME !!
.
So please, tell us what you think.