Annabelle to explore relationship between climate policy and health outcomes

Annabelle
Workman.

Annabelle Workman was like a nervous schoolgirl and probably with good reason for she was about to present for her PhD confirmation.

She is studying for her PhD through the EU Centre on Shared Complex Challenges, with the intention of looking at the relationship between climate policy and health outcomes in Australia, China and the European Union.

About 50 people, including Annabelle’s supervisors, gathered in the Fitz Lowe Theatre at the University of Melbourne’s School of Sciences on Thursday to hear how she intended to complete the thesis.

A Professor of Atmospheric Science in the School of Earth Sciences and the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science at the University, David Karoly, introduced Annabelle.

Watching on were fellow supervisors, the Deputy Director of the Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute at the university and Professorial Fellow Melbourne School of Global Health, Professor John Wiseman, and Dr Grant Blashki, who has been a practicing GP for more than 20 years and is an Associate Professor in Global Health at the Nossal Institute for Global Health.

Also in the audience of about 50 was an advisor who Annabelle has said had been a wonderful inspiration, Fiona Armstrong, who is the founder and convenor the Melbourne-based Climate and Health Alliance.

Annabelle, who has majored in Political Science and Chinese as an undergraduate at Melbourne University has also completed a Postgraduate Diploma in Environments, specialising in Public Health, while working for the National Health and Medical Research Council, was clearly apprehensive about yesterday’s confirmation.

She had walked to the Fritz Lowe Theatre in her rubber thongs, forgetting her more formal shoes. Fortunately, her husband, Jacob, was coming along and brought with him the shoes Annabelle needed.

Chatting before yesterday's presentation by
Annabelle, were Professor John Wiseman (left),
Dr Grant Blashki and Fiona Armstrong.

A flyer promoting yesterday’s special event said: “When the health (and other) impact of climate change, world leaders are yet to commit to action on climate change commensurate to the likelihood and severity of risks, as outline by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

“Climate change has significant consequences for human health that are already being felt, and will be exacerbated if business as usual continues.”

Annabelle explain to those at yesterday’s seminar how she intended to restrict research for her thesis to Australia, China and European case studies and within that limit it to state players and not concern herself with regional or local issues.

Special emphasis, she explained, would also be put on mitigation as opposed to adaptation.

Warm applause and several piercing questions followed Annabelle’s presentation, which was a reflection of her name, in that it was very “Workman-like”.

We're asking the wrong questions about geoengineering - Prof Gardiner

"We are asking the wrong
 questions" - Prof Stephen
Gardiner.

Stephen Gardiner has argued that we are asking the wrong questions about geoengineering.

The Professor of Philosophy and Ben Rabinowitz Endowed Professor of Human Dimensions of the Environment at the University of Washington, Seattle, says the traditional question such as “Are you for it or agin’ it?” obscures much of what is a stake and trivialises the conversation.

Listening to the more than 45 minute lecture it was abundantly clear that nothing is ethically clear, in any sense, about geoengineering.

With Prof Gardiner holding the audience’s hand, we took a journey down the slippery slope of ethics and morals that must first be addressed when discussing, and considering, geoengineering.

Prof Gardiner spoke at an event in the Yasuko Hiraoka Myer Room at The University of Melbourne as a guest of the Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute (MSSI) .

The topic for his lecture was: “If a Climate Emergency is Possible, is Everything Permitted? Reflections on some ethically slippery arguments for geoengineering”.

His book, “A perfect moral storm; the ethical tragedy of climate change” ( a favourite of MSSI deputy director, Prof John Wiseman) provides an accessible view of Prof Gardiner’s values.

We need global 'everything' for a successful response

Professor John Wiseman -
he was one of three from
the University of Melbourne
to attend the forum in China.

“Today, human societies are facing unprecedented ecological crisis and challenges. Ecological maintenance and restoration should be not only based on national or regional conditions, but also examined from a global perspective.  “Our response to the crisis and challenges hinges on global governance, global partnership and global consensus”.

That was the opening statement from the theme for the July forum in China entitled: “Eco-civilization Education: A Global Perspective”.

University of Melbourne sustainability leaders attended the Inaugural Conference of the Green Alliance of Universities for a Sustainable Future (GAUSF) to share sustainability ideas and build links to universities across the globe.

The conference was a sub-forum of the 2014 Eco Forum Global in Guiyang, capital of China’s Guizhou province.

Its focuses were to establish the mission of the GAUSF, examine universities as incubators of sustainable development and to study present and future eco-friendly development in Guizhou from a global perspective.

University attendees were Pro Vice-Chancellor (International) Simon Evans, Deputy Director of the Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute (MSSI) John Wiseman and Professor Deli Chen from the Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences.

Professor Wiseman said universities play a three-fold role in the maintenance of a sustainable society: innovation and the development of new ideas and inventions through research, teaching and involvement of students in sustainability, and by engaging with communities, governments and business to translate this knowledge into action.

Universities must also lead society by ensuring their campuses are examples of sustainability.

Professor Wiseman said that the Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute combined these roles across the University.

“Its role is to bring together researchers and students across disciplines to conduct research and translate ideas through teaching and engagement to improve sustainability outcomes,” he said.

Professor Evans said the alliance presents Melbourne researchers and students to collaborate with longstanding University partners including GAUSF founder and convener Peking University and Tsinghua University from China, Edinburgh University, Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Freie Universität Berlin.

“There are significant opportunities to develop deep research collaborations with all the members of the Alliance – and to create opportunities for students to connect with their counterparts from around the globe,” he said.

Professor Wiseman said there were many opportunities for the University to collaborate and build links with other GAUSF institutions, particularly in the movement towards a zero-carbon economy and the development of sustainable cities and agriculture.

Professor Chen addressed the necessity of a balance between food security and sustainability in his presentation to the conference.

Professor Wiseman noted the importance of forming sustainability connections with China.

“The senior Chinese people there strongly emphasised the centrality of sustainability – what they call eco-civilisation – as a central priority for the future of China, and indeed for the world,” he said.

“There’s real opportunity to build on that foundation”.

John helps us understand the pathways to zero-carbon future

Professor John Wiseman.

Professor John Wiseman is both a friend of Beneath the Wisteria and author of “Pathways to a zero-carbon economy: learning from large scale decarbonisation strategies”.

Prof Wiseman is the Deputy Director of the Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute at the University of Melbourne.

The executive summary begins: “This paper provides an overview of key features of the most promising and innovative large scale low-carbon economy transition plans and strategies.”

Key findings of the report open with the statement: “The probability and risks of global warming of four degrees or more are rapidly increasing. This is an argument for visionary leadership and decisive action rather than political paralysis and buck-passing.”

McKibben argues we must 'break the grip' of the fossil fuel industry

Bill McKibben toured Australia in June this year, speaking to thousands.

Bill McKibben.

McKibben wrote and published “The End of Nature” in 1989 and that is regarded as the first book for a general audience on climate change.

The American was the founder of the grassroots climate campaign, 350.org, and has taken the message of a need for action to 15 000 rallies in 189 countries since 2009.

Following his speaking tour, McKibben was interviewed by the Deputy Director of the Sustainability Institute at the University of Melbourne, John Wiseman.

 Bill McKibben is the author of a dozen books about the environment, beginning with The End of Nature in 1989, which is regarded as the first book for a general audience on climate change. He is a founder of the grassroots climate campaign 350.org, which has coordinated 15,000 rallies in 189 countries since 2009. Time Magazine called him 'the planet's best green journalist' and the Boston Globe said in 2010 that he was 'probably the country's most important environmentalist.' Schumann Distinguished Scholar at Middlebury College, he holds honorary degrees from a dozen colleges, including the Universities of Massachusetts and Maine, the State University of New York, and Whittier and Colgate Colleges. In 2011 he was elected a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences

 

John Wiseman: Could you begin with a brief summary of the case for divestment in fossil fuel industries? Why do you believe this is such a high priority for people and movements aiming to reduce the risk of catastrophic climate change?

Bill McKibben: We need to weaken the power of the fossil fuel industry and this is one way to do it. Not the only way, but one important way, as we saw in the days of apartheid. It’s a way for all of us to make a moral and practical statement.

JW: How would you summarise the state of play in relation to the ‘Do the Math’ fossil fuel divestment campaign in the United States – and in other parts of the world? What do you believe have been the key achievements and lessons so far from this campaign?

BM: It’s been progressing far faster than we dared hope. 380 college campuses now have divestment campaigns. Fifteen big cities—Seattle, Portland, Providence, etc—have divested. Last week the oldest Christian denomination in the U.S., the United Church of Christ, followed suit. What we’ve learned is that people understand the math and its implications.

JW: More broadly, how would you describe the state of play in relation to global climate change trends and politics as of July 2013? What do you see as the highest priorities and biggest challenges for the global climate movement in the next twelve months?

 BM: Well, the science is bad—watching the Arctic melt scares even me, and after 25 years of this I don’t scare easily. And I don’t know that the next twelve months will turn it around, though I do think President Obama’s decision on the Keystone pipeline could be hugely important. If he says no, then he’s the first world leader to turn down something big on climate grounds—and that’s a good way to restart the international talks. JW: What do you see as the highest priorities for the US climate movement once the Keystone decision becomes clear?

BM: The ultimate goal is a serious price on carbon. That waits on the weakening of the fossil fuel industry.

JW: What were your key reflections from your recent Australian tour about the state of climate politics in this country? I’d be particularly interested in your reflections on the similarities and differences between the way in which the fossil fuel lobby and its media allies operate in Australia and the United States.

BM: I was struck by the seriousness of the ABC broadcasters, and the silliness of a lot of the print press. It tends to be the opposite over here, with the papers at least marginally better. I did think that key leaders were far more conversant with the state of the climate debate than their American counterparts, but was sorry to note the rise of what appears to be a really Tea Party strain in your politics.

JW: In campaigning for divestment in fossil fuel industries, how important is it to be able to identify alternative, more desirable investment priorities including in renewable energy and energy efficiency?

BM: It’s useful—but even if you just put the money into candy bar makers or bowling alley stocks, it will do much good just to divest. One point of the campaign is simply to say: these are now rogue industries. We don’t want to be associated with them.

JW: How do you respond to the argument that divestment from fossil fuels industries will harm the economic and employment opportunities of the poorest people in Africa, Asia or Latin America?

BM: The leaders of those places are calling for the strongest reductions in emissions. If you want to put a lot of people to work and provide them power in the developing world, help them leapfrog fossil fuels and go straight to renewable.

JW: To what extent do you believe that greenhouse gas emission reductions at the required scale and speed are possible without significant changes in the dominant economic policy paradigm of maximising growth in the production and consumption of energy and resources?

BM: I think job one is a big price on carbon, and when we’ve got it we’ll start to see what changes in technology and in habits it produces. My guess is they’ll be both large and subtle.

JW: What is your response to those who say that action at the scale and speed necessary to prevent runaway climate change is simply not possible – that it is ‘too late’ or that the vested interests working too prevent de-carbonisation are too powerful?

BM: Too late to stop global warming—we’ve already raised the temp a degree and are clearly heading for two. But we can still hold it there if we do everything right—if we don’t, the temp rises 4 or 5 degrees and civilization gets difficult I fear.

JW: I’d like to invite you to put on your most optimistic hat and imagine a 2030 world in which the journey to a post carbon future - in which there is real chance of preventing runaway climate change - has successfully begun. How did that transformation occur? What were the key turning points? What were the greatest obstacles and how were they overcome?

BM: I think that breaking the power of the fossil fuel industry is going to be the real key. Once they’re not blocking every change, I suspect we’ll see interesting and unexpected change.

JW: If you had the opportunity to communicate one ‘cut through’ message to the most influential decision makers in the world about the necessity and possibility of rapid and decisive action to address climate change and related ecological risks and challenges– what would this message be?

BM: The Arctic melted last summer. We’ve taken one of the five or six biggest physical features on earth and broken it. In fifty years the only thing anyone will remember about your tenure in office is that it coincided with the onset of this crisis—so do something that will make us remember you as actual leaders.

 

Wiseman and Edwards help us understand the need for urgent transition to a post carbon economy

A more than 130 page report by John Wiseman  and Taegen Edwards helps us understand the urgency of our transition to post carbon economy.

Prof John Wiseman

Professor John Wiseman, currently Professorial Fellow at the Melbourne Sustainable SocietyInstitute and Melbourne School of Population Health, University of Melbourne. He is also a fellow of the Centre for Policy Development.

Taegen Edwards is a Research Fellow at the Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute, University of Melbourne.

Their report, published in March 2012, is entitled: Post Carbon Pathways: Reviewing post carbon economy transition strategies, underlines the urgency of transition from our present way of life to a “post carbon economy”.

Taegen Edwards

In the introduction to their report, Wiseman and Edward write:

Around the world, detailed policy and research initiatives are demonstrating that a rapid transition to a post carbon economy is both technologically and economically feasible.

However, the latest climate science shows that the window for effective action is rapidly closing. Strategies to reduce emissions at the required scale and speed will need to be implemented in the next five to ten years if they are to

significantly reduce the risk of runaway climate change.

2. A fair and swift transition to a sustainable post carbon economy will require:

 rapid reductions in energy consumption and improvements in energy efficiency;

 rapid replacement of fossil fuels by renewable energy;

 the drawdown and sequestration of carbon into sustainable carbon sinks;

 game changing investment in social and technological innovation;

 economic policies which recognise the full costs of failing to reduce emissions and of the multiple co-benefits of the transition program;

 a significant shift towards economic paradigms and priorities which focus on improving social and ecological wellbeing rather than unconstrained growth in material consumption.

3. The difficulty of securing and sustaining broad social and political support is widely recognised as the greatest barrier to a swift transition to a post carbon economy. The lack of detailed game plans for mobilising the required level of political leadership and public support is the most significant gap in post carbon economy transition strategies.

Discussing emissions reduction, energy demand and energy supply targets, the paper says:

The Australian Government’s current target of reducing GHG emissions by 5 per cent by 2020 on 2000 levels clearly remains far from the speed and scale required, and from the targets being set by a range of comparable industrialised economies. It is unclear how its immediate actions relate to the longer term target of 80 per cent emissions reductions by 2050.

Visit Post Carbon Pathways and where you can download the Briefing, the Summary or the entire Report.