The session was billed as a collaboration of pairs of artists and writers responding to the idea of drought. It began with the first team discussing ‘ideas of text, perception and image to explore visual thinking through multi-layered canvases’. I listen to lofty discussions on ‘philosophical drought’, field recordings of cicadas and works ‘celebrating ambiguity’.

To my horror, during the 50-minute session only two fleeting references are made to literal drought – that is, a lack of water to meet communities’ need. It’s as alienating as listening to scientists describe the latest in parameterising ice-albedo feedbacks in Earth System Models of Intermediate Complexity.

At first I am baffled – then incensed. How can the organisers justify a session on drought in modern-day Australia that fails to mention a lack of rain?!

We all know that right now Australia is under the stranglehold of the worst drought since Federation. Achingly dry conditions have now persisted for eleven years across much of southern and eastern Australia. Mighty rivers like the Murray have shrivelled to brown trickles snaking through cracked land. With paddocks reduced to dust bowls, farmers have been forced to sell stock for a pittance or buy feed to keep emaciated stock alive.

According to the national mental health body, Beyond Blue, one farmer committed suicide every four days during the 1990s under the stress of failing crops, dying livestock, mounting debt and decaying rural towns. Scientists predict that our climate is only going to get hotter and drier: that is, droughts are likely to become the new norm in vast parts of the country. Meanwhile, as our governments continue to delay making the gutsy policy decisions needed to put the brakes on global warming, a crucial part of Australian society is crumbling.

Annoyed at the wasted opportunity of the session, I head upstairs to the Ian Potter Centre – colour and creativity always cheers me up. Art is one of the ways we make sense of the world around us. At its most potent, it can be a precursor to profound shifts in public opinion.

For example, when the first images of the Earth in space were beamed back from Apollo 8 in 1968, the affect was breathtaking. Actually being able to see the beautiful blue marbled Earth floating in ink-black space irreversibly expanded our perception of our place in the cosmos. It revolutionised society’s perception of the fragility of planet Earth – our only oasis in a harsh, vast universe.

As my footsteps echo across the floorboards, calmness returns. I am soothed by the art hanging there, silently and unjustified. But soon the question that tugged me from my warm nook, out into a wintry Saturday morning resurfaces: how can art help communicate the reality of climate change?

According to Professor Ross Garnaut, leader of the federal government’s economic assessment of the impacts of climate change, if nothing is done to reduce carbon emissions, average global temperatures could rise by 5 or 6 degrees by the end of this century. A warming of just 2oC will see the colourful coral gardens of the Great Barrier Reef irreversibly bleached a ghostly white. Less than 3oC could see the extinction of more than half the world’s species.

For many of us, it’s actually hard to imagine such a diabolical future. But that’s just the challenge that the arts community are starting to tackle. ‘We are used to scientists providing the information we receive on climate change, this exhibition is unique because it starts to picture what these changes might look like’, says Linda Williams, curator of Heat – an art exhibition on climate change now on in Melbourne.

It features photographic works of shattered Antarctic ice shelves, kinetic simulations of wild weather and even a stuffed polar bear. The challenge is to help people visualise our future climate and, in turn, provoke a strong emotional response that may, eventually, catalyse change. But the question is, can we process the science fast enough for us to see it in our imaginations?

As I make my way for the door of the Ian Potter, out of the corner of my eye I see a painting that stops me dead in my tracks. Its vulnerability is disarming. It shows a distressed woman with her newborn being stretchered out of a flooded home by two men. The edge of the frayed blanket that covers her drags through the floodwaters scattered with eucalyptus branches. A bucket lies on its side, defeated by the muddy torrent. A furrow-browed woman stands anxiously at the door, her dress hitched up to avoid the inundation.

‘Flood sufferings’, painted by Aby Altson in 1890, speaks of the loss of dignity inflicted on the defenceless. Above all, it speaks of compassion: the instinctive human quality that assures me that when we grasp the suffering that lies ahead, we will act.

I leave heartened by a silent epiphany.

After 12 long years, we have a progressive prime minister who will ratify the Kyoto protocol, prioritise a rehaul of the education system and have the humility to say sorry to the indigenous people of our country.

This hilarious article by The Age columnist Catherine Deveny sums up how many of us felt about the end of the Howard era. Tracee Hutchison’s piece celebrating the rise of women in politics is also great.

As a climate scientist, I am hopeful that we will finally see real action on climate change. According to COSMOS, Rudd is expected to receive a “rock star’s welcome” to the world stage at crucial U.N. climate change talks in Bali next month. He will be hailed for agreeing to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, the international agreement aimed at curbing global greenhouse gas emissions.

Up to 140 world environment ministers will attend the conference. It is hoped the meeting will bring vital breakthroughs in the effort to achieve a new climate agreement. It is expected to deliver a road map to show how to keep the planet’s temperature from rising more than two degrees. The agreement must be in place before the Kyoto Protocol’s first phase ends in 2012.

This leaves U.S. President George W. Bush the last world leader refusing to sign up to the U.N. treaty. Many people believe that now that Australia has agreed to ratify, it’s only a matter of time before the US will be pressured to follow suit.

It’s an inspiring start to Australia’s global stand for a better future.

Nice one Kev – you’ve made us proud!

There are three national finalists and the winner will be announced at a gala dinner held in Sydney on 21 August – looks pretty swanky! According to the website, this event is meant to be the ‘Oscars of science’ so it should be great fun.

Keep your fingers crossed for me ; )

*

*

UPDATE: Nick Palousis took out the award – still, one out of three ain’t bad!

For the first time the USA is “seriously considering” a deal between the world’s eight leading industrialised countries (the G8) to move towards a halving of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

Significantly, the agreement reached 7 June in Germany, does not set binding long-term target for greenhouse gas emissions or commit the United States to any specific reductions.

Nevertheless, it has been hailed as a historic step towards reaching agreement in 2009 to cut carbon gases worldwide by 50% by 2050. It is a sign that the US is now willing to at least come to the negotiation table. It has raised hopes of a breakthrough and possible drafting of a “Sydney Declaration” at the next APEC meeting to be held in September.

The 20 APEC members and the six members of the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate account for more than 60% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions and demand more than 60% of the world’s energy resources.

It will be the first coming together of China and the USA, the the world’s two biggest greenhouse gas emitters, since the G8 meeting this week. Hopes are high for the start of real political action on climate change. It will be very interesting to see what eventuates.

Meanwhile, back home in Australia…

John Howard has taken up the recommendation of his hand-picked Task Group on Emissions Trading that “it will take four years for Australia to begin full-scale emissions trading”.

The Climate Institute Australia in Sydney believe that this will only further delay key reforms for up to five years will fail to turn Australia’s greenhouse pollution around or help make the switch to a clean energy future for Australia.

On this basis, it will be 15 years since the Government was fully informed of the serious implications of climate change before anything substantive is done to reduce emissions growth.

Howard has been reported as saying “A 20% reduction from 1990 levels would do enormous damage to our economy and to Australian living standards”.

He goes on to say “To meet such a target the Emissions Trading Taskforce concluded that it would require, and I quote, ‘replacing Australia’s entire existing fossil fuel-fired electricity generation capacity with electricity from nuclear power, while at the same time removing all vehicles from our roads’.

This is scaremongering and misleading, at best.

As a reporter from the The Age rightly points out, the PM forgot to include some critical words from the report: “In the absence of technological breakthroughs”. These few words make a huge difference.

The reality is that Australia’s economy is at much greater long term risk if decisive action is not taken immediately.

According to the The Climate Institute Australia’s Chief Executive John Connor, “Unless we act decisively Australia will remain in the shadow of the 21st century global clean energy economy worth $75 billion in 2005 and expected to grow to over a $225 billion a year industry within a decade.”

Analysis of the Government’s ABARE modelling by the CSIRO’s Energy Futures Forum 1 which includes BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto, Westpac, WWF and ACOSS, show that strong economic growth is set to continue if we take action.

The Climate Institute have reported that under all scenarios modelled, it is projected that both the Australian and world economies will continue to experience strong economic growth when carrying out greenhouse gas mitigation.

The Australian Business Roundtable on Climate Change 2 found GDP continues to grow 2.1% pa with early action and increases from $0.8 trillion in 2005 to $2 trillion in 2050. This occurs while Australia reduces emissions by 60% by 2050.

The Government’s paranoia on climate change is completely fixated on the negative and a resistance to change. They continue to emphasise the cost increases, loss of competitiveness of traditional fossil-fuel industries. It selects economic modelling that exaggerates costs, ignores benefits and adds to a sense of cynicism and paralysis.

The reality is that moving towards to a low-carbon economy represents the greatest business opportunity we have ever seen. There are a number of technologies awaiting the signal that the Government is serious about emissions reduction.

No doubt, once genuine signals are given by government, there will be an avalanche of innovation and technological breakthroughs. It will transform our economy, create enormous economic opportunities and a chance to achieve environmental sustainability. Right now, we are missing out on huge innovative opportunities as we watch our expertise go offshore (see my Long Live the King post).

As CO2 concentrations, global temperatures and sea level rise are all near or above the high end of the “worst case scenarios” projected by the United Nations IPCC, timing is crucial for both for the planet and business opportunities.

There is no time to waste.

There were some pretty startling facts in there.

The big one, for me, is that the emissions of greenhouse gases have risen 70% from pre-industrial levels since 1970. The IPCC report estimates that this figure could rise an additional 90% by 2030 if nothing is done.

Based on current emission levels mean that a 1C rise over preindustrial levels is inevitable. Limiting the increase to 2C is regarded as optimistic.

If global emissions peak by 2015, and then begin to rapidly decrease, there is a chance we can restrict warming to under 2.5C by the year 2050. That would require carbon emissions to drop between 50 and 85 percent by 2050.

But, according to the IPCC Working Group II report, even a 2C rise would mean an extra 2 billion people would face water shortages. We also face losing up to a third of the wildlife we share the Earth with today.

It is so different to our concept of life on our planet that it is actually hard to imagine.

Future generations deserve better.

What we do right now - TODAY - will determine whether we see a small or big warming. That choice is ours.

Deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions are needed and could only cost us a tiny fraction of world output. According to the IPCC report, keeping the rise in temperatures to within 2C would only cost mere 0.12% of annual gross domestic product.

It seems a trivial price to pay for an habitable planet.

Long-term economic prosperity cannot be separated from environmental sustainability as the Howard government would like us to believe.

You’d think that the cost of the most severe drought in our nation’s history would convince Howard of how climate change can seriously damage the economy.

William Moomaw, a lead author of the report’s chapter on energy options and a Professor of International environmental policy at Tufts University in the USA brought up a a great point in a recent interview.

He says that in these early years of the 21st century, we’re looking at an energy revolution that’s as huge as the one that took us from the days of horse-drawn carriages and gas lamps, to the era of cars and incandescent light bulbs.

In 1905, only 3% of homes had electricity. That is the same amount of renewable energy we use today.

I believe we can make that revolutionary leap forward again.

The main take home message of the latest IPCC report is that the technology to prevent serious warming exists TODAY.

That global warming can be controlled - but we must act now.

I was recently awarded a Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists’ science leaders scholarship.

The Wentworth Group reports independently to government on sustainability issues. The program aims to train a new generation of scientist that is able to help bridge the gap between public policy and science.

Seeing that the Australian Government is still in the stage of developing real climate change policy, it seems like a fantastic and timely opportunity to get on board.

It also provides us with a chance to be mentored by a range of eminent natural and social scientists. I am lucky to have the 2007 Australian of the Year, Dr Tim Flannery, Dr Ronnie Harding and Prof Bruce Thom as my advisers.

I am thrilled - I look forward to being a part of it!

Here is an article RMIT wrote up in August 2007.

The most interesting story was about the richest man in mainland China, Dr Zhengrong Shi, otherwise known as “the Sun King”. The Chinese-Australian scientist developed cutting edge photovoltaic (solar cell) technology while working on his doctorate at the University of NSW in Sydney and subsequent work with Pacific Solar.

After a lack of Australian industry foresight and support of the technology, he became frustrated and decided to take Suntech Power offshore. Dr Shi has now made a staggering 3 billion dollars in 6 years manufacturing solar electricity panels. He also has grand plans to give fossil fuel giants Shell and BP a run for their money in the future.

No doubt there are a lot of people in the solar power industry in Australia kicking themselves. As he said, if there had been more support, Suntech’s headquarters could have been in Sydney, not Shanghai.

I found this a spectacular example of Australia’s lack of vision for the renewable energy sector and our government’s current coal addiction.
If you do check it out, keep an eye out for the scene of the 3000 strong Suntech staff wolfing down dinner to a Mandarin dub of Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth !!

With the Chinese economy set to overtake the USA’s in the coming decade, there is no doubt solar technology will go a long way to reigning in the nation’s carbon pollution. Consequently, this will make a huge difference to us all.

By reducing global carbon emission, we have a better chance of keeping our planet habitable for future generations.

In a historic effort to engage billions of people across the globe, Kevin Wall, Al Gore, Pharrell Williams, Maná, Cameron Diaz, and the MSN Network launched Save Our Selves (SOS) – The Campaign for a Climate in Crisis. The plan is to will reach people in every corner of the planet through television, film, radio, the Internet and Live Earth, a 24-hour concert on 7/7/07 across all seven continents that will bring together more than 100 of the world’s top musical acts.

Smart marketers have seized the moment and good for them I say; there is a lot of money to be made. If it takes a movie and a couple of celebs to move the masses on this issue, then so be it. I am glad is it now becoming “cool” to be climate conscious (e.g. see Cool Aid broadcast by Australia’s Network 10, March 4th 2007). Let’s just hope it provides a groundswell of voters at the next American and Australian elections.

Definitely a sign of the times…