Understanding ecological ethics

by Robert McLean

Tim Madigan

Reading a piece entitled “Ecological ethics” in the latest edition of Philosophy Now by Tim Madigan helped me understand why so many are troubled by the complexities of climate change.

It seems than many are not yet open and true believers of evolution and however slim or remote their belief in creation might be, it is for many a more comfortable position.

Madigan said:

“The debate about sustainability is intimately connected with evolutionary understanding of life. If one does not recognise the interconnectedness and fragility of life, then one’s moral framework will likely lack a commitment to sustainability”.

Food security talks take on increased relevance, importance

Intended discussions Beneath the Wisteria on Saturday, February 25, about food security have taken on an increased importance and relevance in the light of new report from the United Nations.

Although those who gather for the February 25 chat will undoubtedly consider local responses to food security, the conversation will unquestionably expand to consider world affairs.

The ABC today had some basic detail about emerging food, water and fuel challenges and the story can be accessed here – World running out of resources: UN

Live as brothers or perish as fools

Martin Luther King Jr.

Tonight I came across this quote from Martin Luther King Jr.:

“We must live together as brothers or perish together as fools”.

Interestingly I came across that while read Ross Jackson’s new book, “Occupy World Street: A Global Roadmap for Radical Economic and Political Reform” in which he discussed a friend’s attendance at the Copenhagen  Climate Conference in December 2009.

In answer to a question as to why obvious solutions to climate change had not been discussed, his friend said that negotiators claimed “They are not politically feasible.”

A shocked Jackson asked: “What does that mean? Does it mean that it is not politically feasible to save our civilization?

Food security talks for BtW in February

Saturday’s January gathering Beneath the Wisteria (BtW) to consider a response to climate change attracted 14 people.

The wide ranging conversation explored such things as diverse as trains and town planning, along with a host of other matters.

It was agreed, however, that the conversation, despite being primarily about a considered response to climate change, needed some overarching direction and therefor a broad topic that discussion could be drawn back to.

Subsequently the group agreed that the next gathering Beneath the Wisteria in Shepparton’s Maude St Mall would focus on food security within the confines of a climate that is changing.

That next gathering is set for Saturday, February 25, at 11:30am. Most who attended the January 28 discussion brought with them a folding chair and as the wisteria was in full leaf, shade was abundant – the situation should be much the same for the February discussion.

US magazine discusses climate change response

Climate change continues unabated.

The US based magazine, Scientific American, has written about “10 Solutions for Climate Change -Ten possibilities for staving off catastrophic climate change”.

The article is worth the few minutes it takes to read, particularly if you stand among those considering a response to climate change.

A four-hour work day might be a workable response to climate change

The ceaseless fertility of the world’s economy, its endless waste of energy and with that our gouging and our never-ending use of the earth’s finite fossil fuels is a key plank in the difficulties that lead to the deterioration of our atmosphere and the dangerous emergence of climate change -  Robert McLean sees one response being the introduction of a four-hour workday that would limit the economy, reduce our prolific use of energy and re-use rather than re-new would become a way of life.

Work has always been, and still is, the rock to which my life is anchored, as is that of many others.

That, however, is a habit I don’t want to break as it pointedly enriches who and what I am. It makes me, in my view, a better person.
Naturally it is easy to be philosophical flippant about the pleasure work brings when not locked into seemingly endless and equally pointless and heartless sweat inducing toil, reminding me of the words from the Bruce Springsteen song Factory:

“End of the day, factory whistle cries,
Men walk through these gates with death in their eyes.
And you just better believe, boy,
somebody's gonna’ get hurt tonight,
It's the working, the working, just the working life”.

Bruce Springsteen

Work, for me, however is not about that sort of drudgery (of course some jobs  have had that flavour), rather it has largely been an ongoing joy through which the human interaction brightens my being, makes me smile and brings satisfaction to every day.
Interestingly though, our addiction to contemporary understandings of work, sees us devote a hefty, and almost irrational portion of our lives to maintaining a structure that ultimately enriches only a few, while the many toiling endlessly, get little.
The “responsible men” who, by what they make appear default, but which is really intent, call the shots in society repeatedly bleat about the need of the “many” to work harder and longer, often for less, to ensure the integrity of an economic system that ultimately serves only them.
The disparity between rewards to the worker and ever bulging bank balances of the few is what ignited the unrest that become known as “the occupy movement”.
The “occupiers” have my support and sympathy as I can sense the injustices they live with and the subsequent unfairness that assaults them every day as a system deemed to be as it should be favours only a few.
However, as understandable as their cause is, it seems somewhat ill-directed in that it seeks equality, or at least an increased sense of fairness, in a system that is in itself fundamentally flawed.
The literal meaning of work has been so distorted by capitalistic tub-thumpers that it equates more now with drudgery than a vocation or a soul-enriching contribution to the broader betterment of the human experiment.
Modern times have seen most people enslaved to an economic paradigm from which we need to urgently disengage, both individually and as a society.
The sacrosanct eight-hour day might seem untouchable to adherents of the present scenario, but a four-hour day in most industries would see a similar amount of work undertaken and completed with hitherto unseen efficiencies.
Those who only see the welfare of man linked inextricably to the economic paradigm and therefore have no understanding of the richness of human contemplation and the fruitfulness of humanism would weep at the idea of people doing what they love rather than having their shoulder to the wheel.
An eight-hour day is a fantasy for many and a move to halve that would need a cultural change of tsunami-like proportions, which undoubtedly would be accompanied by threats from the responsible men about the inevitable collapse of society.
Contemporary work injects discipline into our lives, bringing with it a certain contentment arising from that understood regime and so to live with what would effectively be a half-day holiday every day, people would need to re-think their affairs enabling the fortification of personal resilience attributes and survival understandings that future scarcity will make imperative.
Naturally, a switch to a four-hour day would bring complexities, but from those subsequent intricacies would emerge people who were psychologically more intact, happier, better workers and, importantly, vastly improved communitarians.
Suggestions of a four-hour work day will bring, no doubt, a chorus of comments ranging from “stupid” to “won’t work” from those unable to see the finer attributes of life and whose futuristic vision is limited to what they can see through the prism of growth and its attendant consumerism.
A four-hour work day will naturally slow our exploitation of earth’s finite resources, first by reducing our manufacturing throughout and so resultant output and secondly by an overall reduction of our fiscal wealth and, one would hope, a decline in our apparently inexhaustible desire to accumulate.

The tsunami-like cultural change of a four-hour day would ricochet through the whole of society and with such a short working day it would be advisable to live where you work, or at least within easy walking or cycling distance, bringing an urgent reality to the idea of a five minute life – that sees most everything critical to day-to-day doings being just five minutes away.
The extra free time in our lives should not be wasted on frivolities, but devoted to working on strengthening the character of our neighbourhoods and, by default, our lives.

The idea that is “work” will be re-shaped, restructured and re-thought with many working either at home, or from home, and travelling regularly to a central Work is essential to our mental and emotional health, just as is the “balance” we are always encouraged to bring to our lives about many things.

Should we have the capacity to understand how our egos ignite to underpin the consumerism that drives the capitalistic ethos, then maybe we can find a true balance in our lives between work and living.

The extra free time in our lives should not be wasted on frivolities, but devoted to working on strengthening the character of our neighbourhoods and, by default, our lives.

Considering climate change, scientifically

Welcome to Climate Scientists Australia: Climate Scientists Australia is an independent group of senior working scientists with a mission to advance the use in Australia of balanced, scientifically-based information in decisions on climate-related issues.

Monash and Myer combine

ClimateWorks Australia is a non-profit collaboration hosted by Monash University in partnership with The Myer Foundation that will provide practical solutions dedicated to a sustainable and prosperous low carbon society.

ClimateWorks Australia will develop projects that deliver substantive and lasting reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in the fastest and most cost effective way. These will be targeted interventions that drive behavioural and structural change.

NCCARF helps us understand climate change risks

Those considering their response to climate change would do well to spend some time looking through the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility’s (NCCARF) website.

NCCARF is the leading the research community in a national interdisciplinary effort to generate the information needed by decision-makers in government and in vulnerable sectors and communities to manage the risks of climate change impacts.

Tom sets the bar high

Tom Blees set the bar high in the opening chapter of his 2008 book, “Prescription for the Planet”.

"Prescription for the Planet"
 author, Tom Blees, speaking
 during a visit to Austtralia.

In the chapter, “A world of hurt”, Blees said:

"What we are faced with at the dawn of the twenty-first century is a struggle for our very survival, but that struggle is not against some hostile outside force. It is against our own institutions, our own inertia, a dearth of imagination, a fear of change and a selfish timidity on the part of our leaders”.

Those who gather Beneath the Wisteria  to consider a response to climate change face, considering the views of Blees, a significant challenge.

Our response can be simple or incomprensibly complex

by Robert McLean

Response to climate change either for the individual or on a society-wide basis can be simple in the extreme or so complex it is almost incomprehensible.

Our earth needs a "cooling" hand

Whatever it might be, it needs to be considered, articulated among friends, workable and in the greater good.

Interestingly, it seems the entire world is trapped in an economic paradigm from those struggling to survive in the most destitute of circumstances to the wealthy, who should they wish, can have more for breakfast than many have to eat for a whole week.

Those at both extremes live in a world that is dominated by economics.

The destitute, however, and despite what appears to be disarray, live closer to the idea of community, an idea that will evolve into a workable concept, a way of living to which all of us will ultimately be indebted.

Writing in Nation of Change, Charles Eisenstein said: “. . . community is nearly impossible in a highly monetized society like our own. That is because community is woven from gifts, which is ultimately why poor people often have stronger communities than rich people.

“If you are financially independent, then you really don't depend on your neighbors—or indeed on any specific person—for anything. You can just pay someone to do it, or pay someone else to do it,” he said.

Charles Eisenstein

Any response to climate change, personal or societal, will be hobbled until we can free ourselves from the disabling economic paradigm that only worsens the difficulties from which escape is a must.

Eisenstein has discussed the idea of “gift circles” in which each person, in turn, talks about the one of two things they need and then in going around the circle again, each person talks about things they have to give.

Of course, those in the circle can mention that they would like one of those things on offer.

Notes of needs and what is offered are kept and circulated via email among those in the group.

Finally, the circle is used a third time, to provide the opportunity for those who took up a previous offer to articulate their gratitude.

Eisenstein said: “It confirms that this group is giving to each other, that gifts are recognized, and that my own gifts will be recognized, appreciated, and reciprocated as well.

“It is just that simple: needs, gifts, and gratitude. But the effects can be profound,” he wrote.

The Eisenstein discussed process effectively disconnects us from the consumerist way of living that the economic hawks argue is the lodestone of the good life.

What is and isn’t the “good life” is remarkably subjective being inextricably linked whether you are or not are among the comparative few who live within the ease of the economic paradigm or, rather, stand with the many who look-on with curiousity and envy from the outside, remote from the good life and who experience a life of real want.

There is, however, sliding through all this imagined or genuine want, created openly, but strangely surreptitiously, by the legions of marketers who engineer within each of us a need for the “new”; the idea that last year’s model, of whatever, is no longer what we should have, although the newest edition is frequently, in a practical and pragmatic sense, essentially no different from that we already have.

The ideal of the consumerist world, the idea that we must have the “latest, newest and best”, is what is exhausting the world’s finite resources and driving us further up the “don’t go there” climate change scale.

The welfare of humanity, according to countless scholarly economists and business and political theorists, is linked to an ever increasing growth-based economy; an economy that under close examination favours only a few, gouges at the world’s finite resources, pays little attention to innovations that contribute naught to the traditional growth-based economy, but which are critical to the broader well-being or happiness of people.

It is so difficult for us to imagine a society that is not linked to, or driven by, a growth based economy, but if our response to climate change is to have any influence or impact we must be intimately involved in the creation of a whole new paradigm in our communities, and beyond that our broader society, of a way of living that does not revolve around the money-based economy.

Our contemporary economy compartmentalizes and individualizes everything, ignoring the reality that everything of worth in the world is inextricably linked through nature’s network epitomizing the adage about the flapping of a butterfly’s wings in an Amazon jungle can be a pivotal happening in a typhoon that sweeps through some other and distant part of the world.

Within Eisenstein’s “gift circle” are the beginnings of what will be the underpinnings of a new way of living, one that escapes the present growth-based economy and hinges on the idea of sharing.

Long have I imagined that a family home would be just that – remaining within the family for generations and changing shape and size to meet the ever changing demands of families and never to be sold, rather to be given away with the proviso that the existing occupants can live there until they die.

The idea is that the older generations can live in the house until they die, passing on their wisdom and knowledge to younger family members and so re-igniting a dynamic which is lost humanity when older people are “hidden” from society in old peoples’ homes.

Should houses be built with an understanding that they were to be the family home for a long, long time, construction would be different in that it would be planned and built in such a way that it would fit more comfortably with the environment and designed in such a way that it would allow those who live there to survive without heavy reliance on energy derived from sources other from those integral to the house itself.

Sharing would be common – rather than every house having a complete set of tools (garden and otherwise) as it does now, neighborhoods would have one central repository of tools that would be shared among 20-30 households to allow for allow for the upkeep and maintenance of those respective homes.

We will have fewer houses, but more homes for more people, fewer overall tools from large to small, and because of that, more sharing of skills and knowledge about some of life’s most fundamental tasks.

The added bonus, of course, is more personal interaction among neighbours and subsequently a stronger community.

Just two thoughts that would help us ease our way out of the present economic dilemma as no longer would people be bound to what are often life-long mortgages or the relentless and inexplicable variations of the real estate market and nor would we, along with thousands of others, spending untold sums to accumulate tools that research has shown that those same tools (both in monetary and environmental terms) are frequently used for just one or two minutes in their 20 year life.

This is somewhat extreme,
 but trains are unquestionably
the best way to move people.

That suggests, inarguably, that those same tools should be drawn from a central neighborhood resource, set up for the purpose of sharing.

Public transport is about sharing, private transport is about individualism and so there is the crux of society’s challenge with climate change – as long as we adhere to individualism it will worsen (although we are already locked into difficult times because of the long-life of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere), but through sharing, pretty much everything, we can ease our future's decided difficulties.

Prof Mike Hulme discusses why we disagree about climate change

One of the participants in the initial Beneath the Wisteria chat on New Year’s Eve, 2011, was Steve Rodgers who commented about how much he enjoyed the work and ideas of Professor Mike Hulme.

Professor Hulme discusses “Why We Disagree About Climate Change” on the ABC’s Big ideas program.

Professor Mike Hulme

Mike Hulme is a UK Professor of Climate Change who thinks we've mistaken the means for the end when it comes to climate change action. On a visit to Australia, he gives an impassioned lecture about why it's such a hard sell in such a "partisan era".
We should stop focusing, he says, on the goal of trying to "stop climate change", or identifying which risks are natural or not. Instead, Hulme says we should focus on ensuring that the basic needs of the world's growing population are adequately met. It's a very plain argument, which is also hopeful about the future.

Amongst Hulme's "good news" stories is India's considerable solar power production. His lecture at TAFE NSW Sydney Institute was given in conjunction with the Hot Science Global Citizens symposium. He was introduced by Australian climate scientist, David Karoly.

Professor Mike Hulme is a Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia in the UK. Hulme was, for 12 years, a senior researcher in the Climatic Research Unit, part of the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia. In 2000, he founded the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, a distributed virtual network organisation headquartered at UEA, which he directed until July 2007. Hulme is the author of "Why We Disagree About Climate Change".


Professor David Karoly

Professor David Karoly, who has spoken in Shepparton about climate change, is a Professor of Meteorology and an ARC Federation Fellow in the School of Earth Sciences at the University of Melbourne. He is a member of the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists and the Australian Academy of Sciences' National Committee on Earth System Science.

Gunter explains his dream and talks about the 'Blue Economy'

Belgian economist
 and entrepreneur, Gunter
 Pauli

Gunter Pauli has a dream and through this talk on the ABC’s Big Ideas you can learns about and understand something about his vision.
The Belgian economist and entrepreneur has a plan to develop 100 manufacturing innovations with viable business models that could generate 100 million jobs in 10 years - all with zero emissions and no waste.
Watch Gunter Pauli explain his “Blue Economy”.
Thanks to Tatura's Terry Court for alerting Beneath the Wisteria to these interesting ideas.

Considering the "five minute life"

 Any worthwhile response to climate change is so disruptive to a developed nation’s lifestyle that few of us are mentally, emotionally or physically equipped to deal with the implications.

Although those same demands appear overwhelming and so impossible, they will, within my lifetime or certainly that of my children and indeed my grandchildren, become a consequence with which we will have to deal.



The City of Greater
Shepparton's Mayor,
Cr Michael Pollan.



Rather than be hurled unprepared into a cauldron of troubles (that sounds somewhat dramatic, but climate change, at its extremes, is exactly that), we need to think about, and discuss, our response to the unfolding changes.

The intricacies of impending distortions to the world’s weather are so byzantine and produce figures, graphs and computations equally tortuous that interpretation by the uninitiated is almost impossible, even the experienced are sometimes confused.

That, however, does not exclude us from our responsibility of doing all we can to understand what is happening and grasping even a portion of that, and so responding in an adequate and timely fashion.

Within that, it is worth noting, that composition of those figures pointing to such sweeping a human tragedy that is climate change are so knotty that openings are forever appearing through which doubters can legitimately join the conversation.

The City of Greater Shepparton’s Mayor, Cr Michael Pollan, declares himself, along with many farmers he deals with, as a doubter.

Cr Pollan stands with; it seems, with the British economist, the late John Maynard Keynes, who said “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”

In waiting for the facts about climate change to actually alter, Cr Pollan has missed that difference in our climate. He has been looking, but obviously in all the wrong places and not hard enough as the facts about earth’s deteriorating climate are obvious.

Beneath the Wisteria is about considering and pondering what it is we do on response to the sweeping difficulties and within that response rests a significant responsibility for City of Greater Shepparton and by default Cr Pollan.



John Maynard Keynes



Obviously that first response is personal with people preparing themselves emotionally and physically for the undoubted differences ahead, but then in a broader sense, and one which probably be more effective, governments at all levels need to create a dynamic in each of the constituencies that will enable the creation  of more resilient communities.

At the local level that begins with town planning decisions made through an understanding and agreement that our future is going to be significantly different in all respects, particularly with the availability of and use of energy.

Councils such as that which Cr Pollan leads should be working toward the establishment of a “five minute life” for all their constituents; meaning that most of what people need on a day-to-day basis, that is food, various services, work, recreation and other social needs, are all within an easy five minute walk or cycle.

The ongoing confusion between our wants and our needs is one of the key reasons for climate change.

Steve's reflections on climate change

Stephen Rogers was among the eight who joined that first “chat” Beneath the Wisteria.

Below are some of his reflections on climate change:

When I think about the reach of Climate Change I realise that it affects and has implications for all aspects of human existence.  The very idea of Climate Change seems to be embedded in our humanity.  Big claims I know so let me expand on this.

The Personal:

It is trite to state that the climate has always changed.  Individual humans experience a change of climate every time they move from one geographical location to another.  I grew up in Nelson in New Zealand.  The climate there maritime and is very benign being due to it being protected from the worst of New Zealand’s weather by mountains to the west, south and east.  I enjoyed warm sunny days with few weather extremes.  I moved to Wellington at 18 and experience some of the windiest weather of any major city in the world.  The climate was cooler, more windswept and wetter than Nelson.  After a year I found myself in Shepparton in the Goulburn Valley region of Australia.  Here was a huge change of climate to hot and dry with flies and spiders to match.  Over some 40 years off and on in Shepparton I have learned to live with some of the extremes but find 35+ degree days very taxing without air-conditioning.

My Fear:

Having experienced a number of radical changes of climate by moving my location, I have come to fear the prospect that Nelson will become like Shepparton and Shepparton something akin to the fires of hell.  In 2009 when we experienced a series of 40+ days culminating in the Black Saturday fires I began to realise the implications of the prospect of that sort of event happening more frequently in future.  It is generally accepted that human induced warming of around 0.8 degrees has so far occurred.  If, as I believe they are, the 13 year rain deficit from 1996 to 2009 and the heat wave of January/February 2009 are the  predicted consequences of such an apparently small change in average temperature, then I fear the consequence of the already in train 2 degree rise will be a catastrophe for humans.  The question uppermost in my mind is “How will humans respond?”  As I have written this piece I have

One Emotional Response Discussed:

Mike Hulme in his book “Why we Disagree About Climate Change” identifies four common emotional responses to Climate Change being:

REMEMBERING EDEN:  The belief that there once was a Golden Age in which humans lived a paradise like existence with no problems such as disease, over population, discord or war.  As our thinking matures we come to understand that this is a human yearning that probably has never been an actuality of human existence.  Why would it be, when existence for all living organisms is randomly peaceful and violent by turns.  I have recently come to question my understanding of this but will let it stand for the time being.  See my later discussion of “The Continuum Concept”.

ARMAGEDDON:  The biblically expressed deep seated fear in humans that all will come crashing down in a great catastrophe any moment now.  Once again mature thinking leads us to notice that notwithstanding all of the dire warnings from history, humans have prospered on the earth for quite a long time, in the human time frame.  Yes things look like getting worse for a very long time but it is likely that at least some humans will continue to exist when the climate again stabilises sometime in the next 1,000 odd years.  See also my later discussion of “The Continuum Concept”.

BABEL being the belief in humans that we can do the same job as nature. That we can manipulate our environment to our ends ahead of its natural tendencies.  In the past this lead hunter gatherers to create civil society (Cities) leading seemingly inevitably to over population, over exploitation of resources and the invention of a whole world of things that promise comfort and ease but deliver pollution and unquenchable desire for more.  It is this thinking that leads to proposals to put sulphur into the atmosphere in order to achieve the sort of temporary cooling produced by huge volcanic dust clouds and proposals to put some sort of light filter between here and the sun.

JUBILEE being the example provided by the Jewish concept of forgiveness and renewal every 50 years (Jubilee).  This is the hope that in seeing and experiencing the consequences of civilisation carried to its final extreme, we may find a way to change our nature and live sustainably on the earth.

I recommend that those interested in the debate over Climate Change read Mike’s book and visit these two related web sites http://mikehulme.org/ and http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/

Another Response:

After 35 odd years, I am reading again “The Continuum Concept”, by Jean Liedloff.  It contrasts the way that children are raised in so called “civilised” cultures with the child rearing practices of indigenous cultures in remote South American jungles.  The continuum refers to the way that human children are born expecting, based on the whole of human history,  to be gently introduced to life outside the womb in the arms of a loving mother figure.  The young of all living creatures are born into an expectation of being raised according to the history of their species.  The coming of civilisation seems to have broken the continuum for humans and I can see it is possible that unsustainable living is an inevitable consequence of this.  Civilised humans seem separated from and fearful of nature and yearning for something that seems to be missing.  Thus perhaps the REMEMBERING EDEN emotional response to Climate Change is a reflection of our not having been born into the continuum we expected and ARMAGEDDON describes the fear of catastrophe experienced at birth when the expected continuum is not there.

Perhaps we wasteful, all consuming, moderns can find in those few remaining sustainable human cultures some acceptable examples and lessons for a way to live in the future.  Clearly there is no way back to nature for us.  However, many of us want to change the way we act in order to address the known dangers of Climate Change.  I for one propose to keep thinking along these lines and read as much as I can on the topic.  Whenever I think about the wisdom of the indigenous cultures around the world, I deeply regret and am dismayed by the vigour with which “civilised” humans dismiss, belittle, attack and seek to wipe out indigenous humans wherever they encounter them.  It tells me that there is clearly a fundamental divide between being civilised and living sustainably.  I think a lot about this sort of stuff.  I have not yet found a way to act on the thinking and so my partner and I do the best we can and try to cut down our carbon emissions by cutting power consumption at home, generating some of our own power and growing our own vegies.

"What can we do?" , asks Sam

Sydney Theatre Company
director, Sam Mostyn
 - "what can we do?".

Sydney Theatre Company
artistic director, Cate
Blanchett

Most women, according to climate change sustainability strategist, Ms Sam Mostyn, have heard sufficient about the dramatic implications of our changing climate and now just want to hear about what it is they can do to ease the difficulty.
Ms Mostyn, who is a company director, a member of the Australian Museum Trust and, among other things, a director of the Sydney Theatre Company Board, made that observation during a panel discussion on the ABC’s Big Ideas program.
The program, entitled “Cate's Climate Change Vision” tells of the ambitious, and so far successful, “Greening of the Wharf”, the home of the Sydney Company on Sydney Harbour - Artistic Directors, Andrew Upton and Cate Blanchett have led a team that has seriously upgraded the Wharf's sustainability.
That project and the subsequent widers societal impliations were discussed in the ABC's Big Idea program by a panel that included Ms Mostyn.
It was during the summing up that Ms Mostyn noted that women were becoming weary of repeatedly hearing about the serious implications of climate change and wanted, rather, to simply hear about what it was they could do.

Links from Terry Court

Tatura's Terry Court provided the following links (thanks Terry)

•••••••  All you need to know about temperatures increases in Australia in 1 graph

http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/climate/change/20110105SSTgraph10.gif

•••••••  300 years of fossil fuels in 300 seconds (video)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJ-J91SwP8w

•••••••  The ultimate climate change FAQ

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/series/the-ultimate-climate-change-faq

Building the definitive guide to climate change, covering science, politics and economics                  

•••••••  Naomi Oreskes - Merchants of Doubt

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2011/3101369.htm

ABC Science Show, 8 January 2011

•••••••  New study suggests climate change would continue even without greenhouse gases

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/prairies/new-study-suggests-climate-change-would-continue-even-without-greenhouse-gases/article1863311/

Bill Graveland, The Canadian Press, 12 January 2011

A study predicts there will be havoc akin to a big-budget Hollywood disaster movie in the next 1,000 years even if people stop emitting all carbon dioxide into the atmosphere now.

 

Fire and rain: the lessons of natural disasters

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/editorial/fire-and-rain-the-lessons-of-natural-disasters-20110111-19mkr.html
The Age editorial, January 12, 2011

Queenslanders knew this summer's storms would be severe and bad flooding was likely.

Have Insurers Begun to Detect Climate Change in Storm Damage?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=have-insurers-begun-to-detect-climate

Evan Lehmann and Climatewire, SCientific American, January 11, 2011

It's likely that the number of strong storms involving rain, snow and hail is also rising because of warming temperatures, not just urban sprawl and expanding development

Global weather disasters a sign the heat is on
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/global-weather-disasters-a-sign-the-heat-is-on/story-e6frg6zo-1225983256858

Mike Steketee, The Australian, 8 January 2011

Meteorological figures confirm the empirical evidence that temperatures are rising.

Tom's "Prescription for the Planet"

Tom Blees has a Prescription for the Planet.

He recognises the fact that the earth is ill and in a privately published book has put together his prescription.

The cover of Tom
Blees new book.

Writing in praise of the book, the Director at Plasma Research in the US, Louis J. Circeo Jr., Ph.D. said: “Tom Blees has embarked on an important journey to launch a Global Energy Revolution. This book brings together the most important technologies of the day to counter the effects of global warming and looming energy crisis”.

Blees book is accompanied by the website that helps readers understand what he says is a painless remedy for energy and environmental crisis.

On the book’s back cover it says: “Global crisis, like climate change, pollution, and resource wars simply cannot be managed by the same systems that created them. The unprecedented severity of these problems demands a new world paradigm that actually offers solutions and promises a better life for all.

“Prescriptions for the Planet offers real remedies for all those dilemmas-and more. Impeccably researched and lucidly written, this is a must read for anyone concerned about the health and well-being of Planet Earth and its inhabitants.”

Join us Beneath the Wisteria

Coming “chats” Beneath the Wisteria

 

Dates for future “chats” Beneath the Wisteria, all at 11:30am in Shepparton’s Maude St Mall, about our response to human induced climate change are:

Saturday, January 28

Saturday, February 25

Saturday, March 31

Responding to climate change

(One fellow considering how we should respond to our human induced changing climate had these thoughts - )

   

     I find the whole issue of appropriate response to changing climate a complicated one but this perhaps doesn't have to be the case. 

   One of the main problems that appears to me is that we are expected to tackle the problem ourselves as individuals not because we want to but because we should. We are then left as individuals working out what size environmental footprint is acceptable which if the quest for minimal impact is taken to its logical conclusion leaves us as individuals wondering about our very existence.

   This isn't helpful and probably not even very productive. This sort of 'we must because we should' approach is probably best coming from a concept of what society in general describes as acceptable wether that be through elected bodies or from a general consensus of the population. I'm not suggesting individuals don't have personal ethical standards but that this is often not a main driver of everyday decisions in modern Australian culture. 

    As individuals we are driven by what we want to do and strive to those ends. If a social climate prevailed where individuals wanted to live in a more sustainable way then people would strive to do so, the breaks would be 'off' so to speak and individuals would be heading to a different set of goal posts. I am quite positive that we have the knowledge, equipment and resources for such a change the only change required being a social one. 

    As an individual I don't want to stop doing the things I enjoy, who does? I like flying, riding motorbikes, driving in air conditioned comfort, eating out and all those other things so for me the best solution is to either make these things more efficient with minimal pollution and energy input or give me something else just as exciting as a substitute. Our job as people advocating change is perhaps simply to describe that new world.