 Good afternoon. My name is Leah Armstrong. I'm the Director of Indigenous Engagement and Reconciliation in the Office of Indigenous Strategy and Leadership. In opening this evening's looking ahead series, I'd like to acknowledge country and pay my respects to the elders past and present and to do the traditional custodians of the land in which we are gathered here this evening for this series, the Iwabakal people of this area. I'd also like to acknowledge all other traditional custodians throughout wherever this series is streaming this evening and pay my respects to other fellow Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people that are present. I pay my respects to the elders past and present and to their continuing connection and contribution to this land and to this community. Acknowledging country is a very important protocol, especially for this tonight's discussion. It's important to recognize that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have developed knowledges and practices that have taken care of this country, the land, the natural resources, our animals, our plants for tens and thousands of years. Indigenous ecological knowledges and practices are intrinsically connected to culture, language and well-being. Our knowledge systems keep our country alive and determine the roles and responsibilities and relationships we have for taking care of our environment. As tonight's discussion evolves around solutions to drive long-term change for ecological sustainability and how we can support and educate the next generation to make a positive impact on the health of our environment, it is critical that Indigenous ecological knowledges and practices are respected and valued and become woven into these discussions. Indigenous peoples across Australia and the world are observing the impacts of climate change. Their ecological knowledge combined with agency may provide solutions and adaptation opportunities if culturally proficient relationships with individuals and institutions are formed. We believe the University of Newcastle is uniquely placed to collaborate with local Indigenous communities to ensure Indigenous knowledges and Western sciences are interwoven to create new and innovative solutions to climate change. So I hope this evening is very, this evening's discussion is very informative to everybody and good luck to everybody. I'd like now to introduce Alexa Stewart from Lambton High School, who has led the school strike for climate change. Welcome, Alexis. Thank you. When I had just turned 15, I went to my first protest. Well, when I was younger, I had been to others with my parents, but this was my first protest. November 2018, and half an hour before the first ever school strike for climate in Newcastle was about to kick off, I was still at school and thought I wouldn't go. But in a sudden and unexpected sense of urgency, I realized I needed to go. My generation was being called to action and that I wanted to be a part of that. So, a panicked phone call to my older sister who decided to go, a speedy ride on the electric bike, and about 30 minutes later I was in town surrounded by 500 angry yet empowered young people, chanting at the top of our lungs fists in the air. It may sound cliche, but I now realize that was a turning point in my life. There's an incredible power to the youth, I think. When we look around the world, so many social movements are inspired or led by young people. And the international school strike for climate movement is such an inspiring example. I think our power comes from our desperation. We have our whole futures ahead of us, so to us, everything is at stake. And because those of us who are under 18 can't vote, it's easy to feel powerless, to create change in society. So we have to get creative and use the power that we do have, our education. My experience of the second school strike for climate was very different. By this time, three and a half months later, I was involved in organizing the rally and was leading a delegation of 14 students to speak to a local politician. The energy at the rally was electric, a huge turnout and the feeling of strength and power was in the air. But when our delegation left the huge crowd to speak to the politician, the energy changed dramatically. After over an hour and a half of the politician essentially talking at us, we returned to a crowd that had dispersed. We felt deflated and defeated and I broke down in tears. The energy and empowerment I had felt just that morning was gone and replaced with a feeling that no matter how many people came to our rally, no matter what we did or how we did it, our voices just weren't being heard. It was an intense and a painful thought, but I later came to realize that the most powerful way of overcoming these feelings of helplessness was through action. When I surround myself with like-minded people and really commit to what I believe in, I know I'm doing everything that I can, which gives me hope and the power of that should not be underestimated. September 2019, just over one year ago, was the biggest school strike for climate in Newcastle and a day I consider to be one of the best of my life. Civic Park was filled with about 10,000 kids and adults, so much more than we ever expected. As a movement, we were gaining momentum and I really felt like together we could change the world. Then COVID-19 hit. It has completely overtaken our world and impacted almost every person and every aspect of our lives. It has dominated almost all conversations and despite the small temporary environmental relief has squashed most conversations about climate action. New challenges have arisen for the fight for climate justice as have new solutions. One positive that has come from COVID is that it has given us an opportunity to pause and reflect on society and consider what we as a society and more importantly as humans value. So at this critical point in history, let's not strive to return to normal. We can and we must do better than that. I would now like to introduce Paul Dastour, who along with his team is at the forefront of the emerging field of organic electronics. Thanks, Alex. That was brilliant. I'm sure everyone will agree very inspiring and a fantastic story. Thank you. Good evening, everyone. My name is Paul Dastour and I'm Professor of Physics and Director for the Centre for Organic Electronics here at the University of Newcastle and we're beaming into your homes or into your workplace wherever you're watching us from here at the bar on the hill. Sadly, there's no bar, so that's okay because I think we've got a fantastic evening ahead of us. We're going to be talking about climate change, but we're going to pick up on just what Alexa has spoken about. Talking about climate change in the context of living through a pandemic. What is that telling us? What are the sorts of things that we're going to have to address? What are the learnings? So what we've got this evening, I will be introducing later on our fantastic panel. We've got five members who will join me up later on. Debbie O'Burn, Dan Sheeban, Alexa Stewart will come back, Roberta Ryan and Joss Kirby. So together we're going to debate some of the things that are being covered in today's talk, but we're also going to explore some of these ideas about changing the way we're living. I just want to remind you at this point or point out that we will be hoping for lots of questions from you at home and there is a QR code here for you to scan and think of those questions while this talk is going on. So in this time where we've been experiencing this pandemic, what does that meant for our attitude towards climate change? What are the sorts of things that we can learn and have there been some benefits from what we've been living through? Well, obviously it's been a terrible time, an awful time, and we've had to suffer a number of huge impacts on us. Our entire lives have changed since the beginning of the year. We now take for granted things that we couldn't imagine, no flights for anyone. I know that for many of my colleagues, this is probably the longest time they spent in Australia ever. But within that, we also need to acknowledge some of those impacts. So what have they been? I guess those impacts have been primarily, I think, in two main areas, one around public health and one around economy. So let's have a look at some of those. In the public health space, we have had enormous numbers of infections and enormous numbers of deaths. Losses that would have seemed inconceivable a year ago. At the moment I have a slide here, which is the up-to-date data from yesterday morning from John Hopkins University, from their dashboard. It shows that we've got nearly 31 million people infected and nearly a million people have lost their lives to this virus. That's an enormous loss. And you can see from the map where the bulk of that impact has been. And it really is quite stark when you look at the density of red on that map where it's located. And we know where those hotspots are. And we know that some countries have been able to avoid perhaps some of the brunt of that impact. So massive, massive public health impact. What about economic impact? Well, this is data from the International Monetary Fund predicting that we will see a massive decrease in growth, in economic growth for the globe this year. And interestingly, that decreases around 5% for the entire world. But it's actually concentrated in the advanced economies. So it's the advanced economies that are going to suffer greatest. And they predict an 8% loss there and less than 3% loss. And indeed, in my conversation in preparing for this talk, and in fact, even today talking with colleagues in other countries, the developing nations do not see themselves as necessarily being impacted as hugely by this virus economically. Of course, then there is a prediction of an economic bounce back. Whether that occurs and how large it's going to be is clearly going to depend on our response and the actions that we can take to mitigate this pandemic. So that decrease in growth, of course, has led to a reduction in the amount of energy that we've been using. And so that energy now, predictions are that we will use something like 6% less energy globally in 2020 than we did in 2019. It doesn't sound a lot, does it? 6%. It doesn't seem too high. But it's actually the combined energy usage of France, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom for 2019. It's about seven times the loss, the reduction in energy usage that occurred during the last event, which was, of course, the financial crisis in 2008. It actually wipes out the previous five years of energy demand growth. So these numbers are substantial, and we have not seen anything like this in the energy space or the economic space ever before. And indeed, as has been reported many times, we have to go back a long time before we've seen something like this in the public health space as well. So within the environment of all of this impact, and of course, it impacts on us, not just at this global scale, it impacts everyone in every household, in every community, in every village, in every town, in every city. Everyone has been impacted. Is there any space for us to have a conversation about climate? Surely that's just a problem we want to leave for another day. We want to leave for another day. What are the climate perspectives? Or indeed, have there been any benefits to the climate from this pandemic? Well, I think you know the answer. There have been, of course, because as we have been not doing things, as we can see, video from and satellite imagery is showing that we are starting to see environments recover. We're seeing, for example, the water in Venice getting cleaner. We can see here now on the video, you can see the nitrogen dioxide emissions from China reducing as all factories were shut down. And that's a good indicator of a lack of activity. You can see all the same thing happening for the factories in northern Italy. So just a massive decrease in activity. And so we have seen cleaner water. We've seen lower nitrogen dioxide levels and other emissions decreasing. So what has that done for our environment? Well, we know some of these classic examples already, they've been quite well reported. In India, we can now see the Himalaya from Jaipur. We can see mountains that weren't seen for 30 years. We can see them from 20, 30 kilometers away. And that is making people do exactly what Alexa said, which is to stop, pause, reflect. Are there some benefits from this period of time? There are some other, many other stories. Let me focus on this one. This one I quite like, pink dolphins. I quite like pink dolphins. So there are pink dolphins in Hong Kong waters that are now being seen at about an increase of about 30% on usual sightings. Why? Because the boats aren't rattling up and down the waterways. And so they're coming back. And so again, as a community, as a species, we're starting to realize the benefits, if you like. Or perhaps the consequences would be a better word, the consequences of this shutdown. But also then the impacts. And perhaps it makes us reflect on the impacts that we have. So if the pandemic is bad, how bad is climate change likely to be in that context? Well, let's have a think about it. At the moment, I mentioned that there have been about a million people have died. Yeah, and we're up to September. So if we count that from January through to September, I reckon that's about three quarters. So multiply by four thirds, that gives me about 1.3 million people dead this year on an annualized basis. Okay, so with a global population of 7.8 billion, that's around about 17 deaths per 100,000. That's how we calculate mortality rate, annual deaths per 100,000. The latest data, the latest publication from Berkeley, says that predicts that there are likely to be 85 deaths per 100,000 people by the turn of the century if we do nothing about climate change. Of course, that takes into account increased disease, increased extreme weather events, increased heat stress, etc. Interestingly, it kind of affects people in cold climates more than it does in hot climates. So that's an impact that's five times what we've just seen in this pandemic. Five times. Okay, so that's the public health impact. What about the cost? Well, I've been working in the renewable energy space for a long time, as many of you will know. And throughout the decades, we have debated what should be a cost that you place on carbon dioxide emissions. And a really, really impossible to afford cost that has been touted is around $100 per ton of emitted carbon dioxide. The current cost of all that shutdown is estimated in the U of S by the rodeo group to be somewhere between three and a half and five and a half thousand dollars per ton. So it's not sustainable. But it's what we're spending. And so within that sort of framework, we can see that we have had this massive impact. But it gives us some potential insights as to what we may face through climate change. Okay. So let's come back to COVID. Let's have a look at what we are doing as a global community around COVID. I think it's fairly clear that the solution to COVID is in its most general sense, immunity. It's a bit like Basil Faulty said really, it's a bit like a statement of the bleeding obvious, but right, we have two ways in which we can gain that immunity. We can either, as has been touted, allow people to become immune in some sort of herd sense, or we can look for a vaccine. And those are our choices really. If we're willing to let people die, then we're happy to go with herd based immunity. If not, then we're looking for another solution. And so I would argue that what we've seen amongst the most successful responses is a response to the pandemic that has been science led, that has involved decision making, that has been informed and led by the science involved. And that science led decision making has brought community together. And communities that have come together and acted together in the most strong way have indeed been the most successful. We have had to develop, for example, rapid detection of the virus. And all of a sudden we now have testing stations all over the country popping up. We have developed new rules, we've developed new language. I didn't know what social distancing meant. I do now. And we now take that for granted. We've been able to respond enormously quickly to this challenge. And of course, we are all waiting for and looking to develop a vaccine. And so again, it is a technology led response that we believe will provide that solution for us in the case of this pandemic. As an aside, what is your university doing in this space? I know that the university is doing an awful lot in terms of research and innovation across COVID. But I can only tell you about the one that I know about, which is the development of a new test for the virus being developed by Professor Roger Smith and the Centre for Organic Electronics that I run, where we are looking to detect the virus itself. And indeed, we have developed new swab based technology that's now been patented. We have a test that is actually working and detecting virus. And that's all been supported by the university through the Vice Chancellor. And he has allowed us to develop this through his own strategic funding. And that collaboration has combined communities of scientists working together across medical health research institutes, across a national fabrication facility, and of course, the Centre for Organic Electronics. So I think that's important because this is your university. And this is what it is doing. So that has been our approach to solving COVID. What does that now tell us? What are the things, what are the challenges now in terms of solving climate change? So I've got three challenges that I want to talk about and potentially pose ultimately to the panel this evening. So what are those three challenges? I've labeled them here young versus old, chronic versus acute, and rich versus poor. So what do I mean? Well, one of the key issues I think in the climate change debate has been generational divide. The fault lines that this debate has opened up between generations. And to be honest with you, it's actually the generation above mine and the generation below mine, which have suffered the greatest schism, the greatest separation. Why? Well, because in terms of climate change policy, of course, there has been a feeling amongst the younger generation that they have to live with this problem. It's my children who come and berate me because they're the ones who are going to inherit the earth. And at the same time, there is a feeling that the older generation perhaps doesn't support policies associated with climate change. In fact, makes decisions that act against the interest of this youngest generation. By contrast with COVID, we have a situation where we have an older generation who feels that they are most at risk from this disease, which is true. Faced with interacting with a younger generation that keeps on partying. So we end up with generational fault lines. It's your fault. No, it's your fault. And so my question then is, if our learning in terms of the pandemic has been that communities that work together do best, do we need to resolve this generational divide? And if so, how? Well, here's one thought. We know that emerging infectious disease, of which COVID-19 is one, are amplified and are going to be enhanced as the climate changes. As we start to have reduction of habitat, as we start to bring wildlife communities and human communities closer together, we more densely pack animal communities, whether domestic or wild. We see that there is a direct link between pandemics and climate change. So does that give us some common ground for these two generations? Because both of these now are clearly linked. And so perhaps we'll be able to start a debate that actually it's in the benefit of both groups to work together to solve this climate problem. One of the biggest challenges around climate change, of course, has been the fact that it is such a long-term issue. It has been discussed, well, actually it's been discussed since the early 1900s, but I remember it being discussed in the 1980s around the fact that temperatures will warm, SEO2 levels rise, etc. One of the arguments around COVID, of course, is that, well, we've been able to respond because it's an acute problem. So an acute problem is one that is short-term, short-lived. By contrast, climate change is a chronic problem. It goes on for a long period of time and is recurring. And so, albeit actually, that climate change also has acute events, of course, such as extreme weather events. If you're going to solve a chronic problem, you need to maintain motivation. You need to maintain the motivation. And we've got some good examples. I mean, a chronic health problem is a broken arm. A chronic, sorry, an acute health problem is a broken arm. A chronic health problem is something like diabetes. And if you're going to solve chronic problems, you know that you have to engage with a community of patients in an ongoing way. And it's a long-term discussion and engagement process that's required. So if we carry that analogy forward, then clearly one of the things we have to do, if we're really going to tackle this climate change, which is such a chronic problem, is we have to engage communities in ways in which we have not engaged them to date. Our learnings from this COVID experience, I think, are highlighted in Tim Flannery's forthcoming book, which is perfectly titled, The Climate Cure, Solving Climate Change in an Error of COVID. And what he picks up on, of course, is the fact that we have been tackling COVID in ways that have involved engagement with community and driving that engagement through science-led decision making, so that community can see that there is a justifiable reason for the steps that we are taking. And we've accepted that with the pandemic. I need to separate. Okay, I need to separate. I need to stay home and be isolated. Yes, okay. I need to stay home and be isolated. And I see that communities that follow that suffer least. So we need to engage our communities. Locally, the latest news we have here in the Hunter Region is a proposal for a new gas-fired power station. Good idea or not. Finally, if we are going to come up with a solution for COVID that actually allows us to return to some semblance of the life that we have experienced previously, it's clear that we're going to have to have a solution that is going to be accessible by all, whether rich or poor. Here in Australia, we could potentially eliminate the disease. But it won't be enough, for example, to eliminate it or to vaccinate our population if other parts of the world are still able to catch the disease and still able, therefore, to pass it on to us. And so that's recognized through the COVAX Alliance, which brings together the GAVI, CEPI, and the World Health Organization to drive towards a low-cost solution for vaccination for all countries. So that strategy then, in my mind, must also apply to energy. If we're going to solve globally the climate change problem, then access to low-cost energy has to be available to everyone, rich or poor. And that means, of course, you've got to derive low-cost energy solutions. Well, renewables are now the lowest-cost energy solution. The graph here I show is from a 2019 report by Lazard. It shows that the cost of, for example, PV, the cost of solar, has dropped dramatically over the last 10 years. It now is, for utility scale, about four and a half cents per kilowatt hour. By comparison, the cost of gas is somewhere around about seven cents to four and a half cents. So it is by far and away the cheapest solution. If you solve the cost problem, we clearly also have other technologies that also do that. And in fact, this evening we have the CEO of Diffuse Energy here on the panel talking about the sort of technology that we're discussing here in the space, in the area of wind. And of course, many of you will know the work that we do on printed solar, where we have now launched the first public installation of printed solar here in Sydney and are now working towards large-scale manufacturers through the development of a factory that will produce manufactured product within the next 12 to 18 months. Combining with storage gives us exactly what apparently we're missing at the moment, which is dispatchable energy. So as I come to the end of the piece that I wanted to talk about, I want to quote, if I may, Bill Gates in August of this year who said, if we learn the lessons of COVID-19, we can approach climate change more informed about the consequences of inaction. And I think for me, that is the biggest learning of this period, that we have seen what happens in the face of a major emergency if we don't act. And we need to act in ways that allow us to learn from our experiences. Just as I would argue Australia learned from its experiences of the bushfires to deliver a far more cogent response to the pandemic, now we need to use those learnings to deliver a far more cogent, intelligent and considered response to climate change. So to finish off, and actually to paraphrase Bill Gates, let's let science and innovation lead our way. Let's make sure the solutions work under accessible for poor and rich alike. And most importantly, let's start now. So I think now's the time for me to stop talking. And I suspect many of you have fallen asleep. What I'd like to do now is to have our panel. And we've got a fantastic group of people with you here this evening. So we've got Debbie O'Burn from Lake Macquarie City Council. She's the circular economy lead. And she heads up their sustainability efforts around the circular economy. We have Dan Sheeban, who's our own sustainability manager here at the University of Newcastle. We have Joss Kesby, who's CEO of Diffuse Energy, a new renewable energy startup here in our local region. We have Professor Roberta Ryan, who's Professor of Local Government here at the University of Newcastle. And of course, Alexa Stewart, who you've met already, who is our Newcastle young citizen of the year and school activist. So I will sit down and stop talking. So we've had the opportunity to think about this response. And this evening, we're talking really about the response to climate change and how that can be motivated in this environment. What have we learned from the pandemic? So I guess my first question, if I can, to you all is, what's the greatest, what are the greatest lessons we've learned from, for climate change, from the pandemic? And I thought I might throw this first to you, Debbie, if I may. What would you say are our greatest lessons, our greatest learnings? From this pandemic? I think one of the greatest lessons we've learned from this experience is that we can take concerted action quickly, that we can organize ourselves when we've got a compelling reason to do so, that we can collaborate. And we have this notion that, you know, we're all in competition with each other. But actually, it's the collaboration that we've seen across the system that I think has been really, really compelling. And I acknowledge your intergenerational divide challenges, but I think we've seen examples of where people have come together across systems and have taken steps on an individual and collective community scale to get on and do stuff. You know, we've actually got to take some action here. And I think there are challenges with that, you know, that acute versus chronic component. And that's part of our psychological DNA. We're off the savannah where you run from a tiger, immediate, you respond quickly. And it's the slow boiling frog. If it takes time for you to realize the danger or to realize the issues, you kind of just say, oh, yeah, well, maybe it will sort itself out. She'd be right kind of attitude. So I think that's probably some of the most immediate lessons we've learned is that we can do this and it gives us a sense of agency. And I think that's really important to young people. You know, we've had this sense that, you know, it's all really hard and climate change is really hard. But actually, when we've got the right motivation and the right will and intent and kindness to each other and care about others, not just ourselves that we can affect real change. Oh, I think that's exactly right. I mean, Dan, if I can if I can throw over to you, what would you say from from an institutional point of view have been the greatest learnings through this process? Look, I think, Paul, it's a little bit of our response to COVID-19 and climate change is a little bit of a double-edged sword, to be honest. I think the community's seen our ability to respond rapidly, very quickly, very nimbly by governments, by business, and by community. When we have a very serious and a very immediate health threat, we can do it. It's really, really clear. I think on the flip side, it's created some anxiety, as well as perhaps some frustration from aspects of the community that are particularly passionate and want to see a response to climate change saying, we've done it here. How come we're not channeling this same level of resources, energy policy response to how we're dealing with, excuse me, climate change? And I think there's a really clear opportunity in that around perhaps our messaging in terms of how we're delivering the message of responding to climate change. I think if we can start to change that narrative, and you touched on it earlier, Paul, to more of the social and immediate health impacts of climate change, we may see the policy response and the action that's really required to see, to give us the change that will mitigate those impacts of climate change. Do you think it's raising expectations? Do you think expectations have been raised now in this environment? Look, I think so. I mean, I think for everybody, myself included, it's been a phenomenal journey to be part of, to see what we can actually do when we're forced to do it. I mean, the way that everybody in large has gone on board with this issue has certainly shown that it is possible. It's very real and it's very possible. It's now how do we channel that kind of response into what is really required for climate change. So, yeah, I think it has raised expectations. So, Roberta, if I can turn to you now. I mean, those, how do we manage those raised expectations from a governmental point of view, whether that be local or otherwise? Yeah, look, I think that the COVID experience has done, as we've all said, it's given us this massive belief that we can do something, that we can have an effect with collective action, that we're not all atomized individuals who are kneeing each other out of the way and stepping over the older generation or the younger generation. And I think the lessons are really pertinent to climate change. I mean, they've got all the ingredients. I'd probably challenge you about the priority of those ingredients just to spark up the panel a bit. Good, good, good. But from my point of view, I think the expertise question, it's been a really great lesson to know that the community can have confidence in expertise. And that's been one of the big challenges, I think, in the climate debate is the climate denier argument that this is just, you know, it's the weather, it's not climate and all that kind of stuff. The fact that we can have a belief in the expertise, I think, is really critical. I would make that expertise a more complex story. I think we need to address climate change. I think we need to rely on indigenous expertise. We need to rely on local expertise, local solutions. So I think we have to rely on science, but I think we have to rely on multiple expertise because it's a terrifically complex issue. I think technologies and enabler, but I don't think in and of itself it's the solution. So for me, technology would probably come down the list. It's one thing to have the stuff that you can stick up your nose and have the test. But, you know, if we don't go and have the test or we think that it's okay to get together in large groups or, you know, all of that kind of stuff, the technology is the enabling part. I think we have to have educated, engaged communities that listen to one another and that support that expertise. We also have to have, so for me, there's always four key components in any kind of big change piece. We have to have the regulatory piece, whether we like it or not. I think we have, there has to be boundaries. I think people have to be clear on what that regulatory piece is. But in terms of the government's piece, which was going back to your question, I think we have to have a really clear shared set of messages that the COVID strategy is simply falling apart at the moment when we've got Queensland saying this or South Australia saying this or the kind of governance pieces and isn't, there's not a collective sense of shared governance in this. So whether you think the national cabinet's the answer or not, but whatever it is, it's a great example of what's possible, that it's possible. And absolutely the acute and chronic issues, the fact that it's not an immediate issue for some people. A lot of people think we're sitting here at 30 degrees today in September. When does something cross over from being a chronic to an acute issue? But I also think that it comes to that question of belief in collective action, clear messages and shared support systems because of all the negatives that come with these things too. So whether it's obesity or climate change, what we have to do is we have to do things differently and we have to consume differently if we're going to address climate change. That means all of us have to do something differently and the technology is just going to enable that. So you've segwayed beautifully on to my next question, which was exactly what I was going to ask you, which was, does technology offer the solution to climate change? And I guess I've got a number of shakes and nods around the panel. So let's explore that a little bit more. I mean, I guess you're saying yes, no, maybe. What are you saying, Roberto? I think any more than the MRI machine gives us good health or the hospital cures health problems, of course, if we're sick, we need the hospital. Of course, if we've got cancer, you can tell I don't know anything about medicine. If we've got cancer, we need an MRI machine or whatever it is. What I'm saying is, of course, we need those things. But what is going to give us good health, taking your diabetes example forward, is that we exercise more, we eat less, we understand the importance of that, we change patterns in households, people do things differently. So for me, the technology piece is the enabling piece. It's not the driving piece. It's the expertise and the engagement that is the driver. Joss, is technology going to go to solve our climate change problems? I completely agree it's just an enabler. It involves the community to get behind it. We need the uptake of the potential that technology provides is a key component. The human component is if you ignore that to your detriment, basically. So I completely agree that technology is an enabler. We need to get a broader consensus about how we can implement the technology to move forward. Because as it stands, technology is a key piece of the puzzle, but it's only a piece. And I completely agree that we need to bring everyone along. Now, just tying back to the COVID situation, for me, the standout with COVID was the leadership that was displayed early on in the piece where there was a general consensus amongst all of our national leaders about the way forward. And I really feel like the community, the Australia, sort of got on board with that approach. I really feel that that's been lacking in the climate change debate. And I think that is a key, a very important part to bring us, to make the changes that are necessary. No, absolutely. So, look, let me just remind our audience at home that we are eagerly awaiting your questions. So do contact us and give us your questions so that I can put those to the panel. Quite happy for them to be sticky questions. That's okay. So, look, moving on then, one of the things I raised was this issue around generational divide, around the fault lines between the generations. So, I mean, my question I suppose is, is there a generational divide in this climate change debate? And is it resolvable? And if so, how? And I thought, I might ask you first, Alexa, if that's all right. Yeah. I do think throughout history, there's always been divisions between generations. I think it's just like an inherent part of our society where, you know, like, even in COVID, we've kind of seen it, like, where we like to, you know, look at the differences between our generations. And I guess, in some senses, put the blame on other generations. But I do think in climate change, there is such a generational divide. My experience with young people is like a real sense of urgency, though we need to act now. And I guess that the debate around if climate change is happening, if it's man made, just in my experience, just isn't as much of an issue. It feels like it's more of an accepted fact. And definitely acknowledge that, you know, that's my circle. And it varies based on, like, location, education, all things like that. But then, yeah, we have got, like, a lot of older generations and, you know, the baby boomers and older generations do have most of the power in our society when we look at politics and things like that. And I guess it is concerning that there is still so much denial. And I think, you know, it's always dangerous to make such large generalizations about one generation concerns more than the others. But I guess I think the difference is that for young people, there is this real immediacy, like that this is our future that's on the line. And that we really haven't done anything. It's not our fault. And, yeah, so that we're going into so much uncertainty. And that we're just not seeing that same leadership from older generations that we so desperately need. Yeah. And that you feel is what's driving the activism. That's really what's stimulating that sort of response. Yeah, I think so. Like, my experience in school strike for climate has just been so incredible. Like, there are so many engaged young people. Like, I'm involved in the national organization. And there's just hundreds of people. And, you know, the knowledge and their passion is just mind blowing, I think. And yeah, I do think it does come from that kind of sense of urgency and sense of, as I mentioned in my speech, that like, to us, everything is at stake here. And, you know, we can't stop, we just can't delay this anymore, because this is like our future that we're fighting for. Well, I have to say, I'm delighted that you are. So, so, all right, let me let me pass that question along to Debbie, maybe, as the other young person on the panel. Why your beer later? If first of all, is there this divide from your viewpoint? And also, then, is it resolvable? I think it would be naive to say there isn't a divide. I mean, we can clearly see that there's a power imbalance in this, you know, in this scenario. And the immediacy for young people is that it is their future. They're looking at hopefully 70 years ahead of them where they're hoping for a future worth living. And then we've got a generation who have, you know, kind of not lived their life and are on the way at the door, but they've achieved a lot in their lives and things are less important, certain things are less important. I think there are, I think there are ways to, as Roberta said, and our Indigenous speaker earlier, to look at other narratives, to look at other ways. And I completely acknowledge the benefits of the science, the voices of science and how they've become more important. But I've lived for 15 years in New Zealand, where there is a much stronger voice for Indigenous worldviews. And last year, we had the World's First Specific Indigenous Circular Economy Summit. And that was held in New Zealand because New Zealand has an approach that is more open to those Indigenous worldviews. And one of the approaches that they have is called makapuna decision making, and that's deciding for the benefit of our grandchildren. So I think we have to acknowledge that for 40, 50 years, we've had a massive promotion of the individual, you know, the economy is the center of life. And I think we've learned that from COVID. What was important was when we all got shut up, our distances from our families, you know, communicating with our family. That's what's important. And I think those are lessons we can take from that Indigenous worldview that actually what is really important, its place, its people, its, and place in the wider sense of the ecosystems and the other creatures that we live, we share that space with. So how do we kind of weave those voices across the system? And the other powerful approach in New Zealand is Kaitiakitana, which is, it's, it's hard to describe. It's some people like me who are not, you know, that's not my native language. It's almost like stewardship or guardianship. We have a responsibility. I mean, it really, really disturbs me that we might be the generation that sees the end of polar bears or the Great Barrier Reef. I mean, that's happening on our watch. And so what do we do about that? And when you only focus on individual, you know, individuals or the economy, you kind of lose the richness in life that makes it worth living. And I think that's what we're missing. So are you saying then that perhaps the resolution to this generational divide is to not focus on individuals, but to focus on community? The focus on community, but also systems. And I just challenged some of the thinking around the diabetes conversation, because I've been involved in some in the health system for a while, where we focused on a problem like diabetes as the individual lose weight, stop eating so much, don't be lazy, get off the couch. That's how we've approached it. When in fact, these are systemic issues. Fast food joins everywhere. You know, no access to fresh vegetables are exorbitantly expensive when you can go and get a burger or fish and chips for half or a quarter of what you could get fresh produce for. So it's stop focusing on just the individual. Actually, we have to create the systemic enablers and pull those levers to support a system that's more regenerative. And that's a fundamental principle of a circular economy. It's not just about sustainability, because sustainability is only really good if you're happy with the status quo and you want to sustain it. We are a long way from that. And in regards to the question about technology, technology is an incredible enabler. But we need to apply it to the right things. There's millions of dollars being put into carbon capture storage, I think, those systems. When in fact, soil has an incredible ability to capture carbon, but not the way we're farming now. Industrial farming is an emitter of carbon. Regenerative farming is a sequester of carbon. So how about we use the technology to, say, stop the 30% of food waste that we have globally? How do we apply the technology to the right aspect in the system where it can really benefit and not be looking for the whiz bang, Star Trek carbon capture or weird stuff up in the sky? I mean, that stuff's cool. Let's do that. But let's not do that at the expense of doing the other things that we can do well. And they have really wide benefits. Supporting farming to be successful, to be drought resistant, to support communities, to get them well paid for the labor they do instead of the cheapest, the big players earning most of the money off the back of farmers, which I don't think that's a good system. I'd like to come back to that point a little later because that actually forms part of the technology roadmap that's just been released today. But if I can pick up on that point about technology, we're getting some fantastic questions from our home audience. So thank you. Let me pose one of this question to Dan initially. The question is, how much does the willingness to adapt to new technologies further cause fault lines between generations? And is the divide, is it divided around age or is it more around consciousness? Look, I think Paul, I guess in my experience, a commitment to climate change or a broader commitment to sustainability is very much a journey. I mean, for the university here, we've had extensive consultation with a broad suite of staff, students, community groups, young, old, across the board. And the reoccurring theme, the number one theme around sustainability is a stronger commitment to climate change across all groups of people for better words. I don't think it's necessarily a generational gap or difference. I think as Alexa really articulated very well, it's perhaps more that sense of urgency to do something. And I can't help but go back to the point earlier around the messaging that we're getting, we're getting the messaging wrong here. The message to somebody my father's age is very, very different to the messaging we need to deploy, I guess, to the younger generations around a sense of urgency. In terms of technology, it's an absolutely fundamental piece of our response to climate change. We cannot do it without a transition to renewables, but it's almost the platform in a way. It's perhaps the easiest piece and not saying that in a flippant way, but we know what we need to do. We have the technology to do that. We can deploy that. The greater challenge is the next steps. It's around the behavioral change. It's around the action of the individual, but not only the individual, the broader community systems type thinking. All of us need to result in a change. So technology plays a huge part of it, but I think we can get that piece right to broaden that much further. So just to pick up on that, another question that's actually come for me because I made the comment about air travel you see, but I think it reflects to all of us here. The question is going forward, are we willing to give up air travel or to do less air travel? To help climate change. And certainly from my part, I'm more than willing not to have to get on an airplane again. And indeed, I think that one of the things that this current pandemic has illustrated is that there are many other ways of working that we've all got used to, the Zoom, et cetera, that have allowed us to perhaps stop doing some of the travel that we have been doing. I don't know, Roberta, do you agree? Will you do less travel, do you think? Yeah, I will do. And I think that that's part of the COVID lesson and story is that whilst there's obviously been some devastating consequences for COVID and there's going to be more devastating consequences, as you pointed out, for climate change, there's upsides. I'm delighted not to travel once a month internationally for work, probably like you are. I'm disappointed I'm not going on holidays, but I'm delighted not to be doing that. But I think the point that we're edging towards in this discussion is that we need the systems or the governance or the structural changes, whatever language we're all comfortable with in our own disciplines. You know, it's the incentive systems that will lead us to doing things differently. So when I think of the COVID example, I'm often really taken with the example of, I don't know, in one of the aged care stories early on and a worker went to work, she had a sniffle, she may or may not have thought she was sick. She went to work, a lot of people got infected. Now, the reason that people go to work is because they're not going to feed their kids if they can't go to work. They're the lowest paid workers, they're an insecure employment, I can't ring up and say I've got a sniffle because I might infect people. That's not about the behaviour of that individual causing those deaths, it's about the systems that don't allow us to act in ways where we can have that kind of collective responsibility. So I think, I agree, I think it is about us doing things differently, but I think unless it's, it is really, we can have really genuine intellectual collaborations internationally because we can, you know, get up in the middle of the night or whatever we need to do to work with our colleagues, it's about, and we can be promoted because we're at an international convention, which we don't have to leave our lounge room for, so whatever the trivial or more serious examples are, we have to have the structural or the systems changes that enable that constructive collective behaviour. Yeah, the drivers have to be in the right direction, have to push us the right way, which I think you've been talking about as well, Alexa. Yeah, I think, you know, this is a major thing that we've gotten wrong with climate change, that we've put so much of the blame on the individual, like we've left it up to them, you know, for example, like, if you look at recycling, it's, you know, there's been something that everyone's been pushing, like, oh, you just need to recycle your plastic, and actually you're just missing the whole point that we need to actually reduce consumption. So I think the key with climate change is you really need to see this systemic response first and foremost be, like, while it is important to make individual changes, really needs to come from that bigger level and just touching on about flying and other issues like that, I think one of the biggest differences between, I guess, our response to COVID and climate change is that you have this difference between instant impact of your actions. So, for example, if you fly at the current moment, then you're putting your life at threat by catching COVID. Whereas if we're looking at the environmental impact of climate change, by you not flying or, yeah, not taking that flight, it's going to have zero impact on your life. So there's not that same incentive because the gratification is delayed, which I think is just another reason why we're just, like, not seeing the same action on climate change, because all of our responses now, it's going to have no impact on ourselves at this moment. Unlike COVID. No, absolutely. So, I mean, just to pick up on that systems-based approach, let me ask a perhaps a more difficult question, right? So most of the conversation last week here in our region was dominated by proposals to put a new gas-fired power station here in the Hunter region. So my question, I suppose, is, is this something we should support? Dan, do you want to take a punt at that one first? Yeah, good question, Paul. I guess, look, I think the Hunter region is certainly in a transitional stage at the moment. We are moving to a low carbon future. There's a long way to go on that journey. I'm not naive and I completely acknowledge that. I think gas plays a part in that transition, but it's certainly not the solution. So I think to go and construct, particularly what the original forecast for that plant was, it is completely way off. I think that's perhaps been scaled down a little bit now to something more realistic. And it plays a piece in the puzzle. I mean, ultimately to get to a net zero future or a low carbon future, it is a transition. Nothing's going to stop midnight tonight. We have to be thinking along those lines. But there are certainly better alternatives to gas, but I think in the interim it's perhaps an option at the right scale that could be considered. In saying that, there's a lot of work around going totally gas free that's going on as well. We know that gas is obviously a fossil fuel. It does emit carbon emissions when we use it. So it's not the clean green alternative we want, but it perhaps plays a part in the interim. Debbie? I don't think it has a place. I think we've got, we can do the other, we can take the other approaches at scale. And one of the big disruptors that I see is this carbon and supply chains. And you're seeing that across a whole range of sectors where that is becoming now a, you know, that I mean, look at what Europe's doing. So they're proposing a carbon border tax. And Joe Biden has indicated if he's elected, he will do the same. So that's basically saying that Europe is, you know, taking the lead on reducing its emissions and now it's competing in a global environment where others are not. So they're now producing and manufacturing goods by burning fossil fuels. And now the companies here who are trying to step up and do the right thing are being penalized because, you know, they're, you know, they're taking that step up. And, and I think that's going to be a real concern for Australia because I read an article recently about the transition away from coal in particular, it wasn't gas. But it said like, if the market globally drops five to 10 percent, the demand for coal, that is catastrophic for the Australian coal industry. And I don't understand why you would be waiting for that. I don't understand that. I mean, and I've been in, in, in, I'm only new to this country, but I've been in conversations where people are saying, oh, we've got 10 or 20 years before the regulators make us do this. And yeah, you probably do, but the market's going to make you do it far faster than that. And if they stop buying your goods, whether they're from China and you've imported the coal for China to make the goods, and then you can sell them, look at incredibly fast China put down that, that Chinese sword. And that was driven by China having a goal to get 50 percent of its population out of poverty by 2050. And the only way to do that was to find another three planets. There isn't enough resources on this earth for China to reach that goal in a linear model. So they adopted the law for the promotion of the circular economy in 2009. And that's what's driving this Chinese sword. So if, if China is now disrupted by carbon and supply chains, I don't understand why any country isn't aggressively going for renewables. It is the only way to stay competitive in a global environment. And I'm not familiar enough with Australia to know what other things you export. But if you're exporting them, you better make sure they're clean. Because you look at Google, they've just declared that they want all of their data centers completely renewable free. And that's been driven by the market. So why would you wait for the government in Australia, which is quite disconnected and not very playing nicely in the sandbox, to come along and wave the big stick when the world's moving on. And the circular economy is just gaining. And even in the nine months I've been in Australia, it's gained even more traction. It is fundamentally built on renewable energy. So in, in that view, in my view, there is no place for gas. It is looking, it's, it's looking in the rear view mirror while the rest of the world is out there. Fantastic. Okay. So look, I might come to one of our questions if I may. So, and this actually is, is, is a question for Alexa. And the question from Holmes says, how should parents of small children talk about climate change and begin to inform the younger youth? Was there a thing younger youth to sustain momentum? What are your thoughts? Yeah, I mean, it's a really tricky one, isn't it? Because there's a fine line between giving hope and letting them know that like the future isn't set in stone and that, you know, it isn't going to be all like terrible for the future, which I think a lot of us are feeling at the moment, you know, when you research it, just the catastrophic impact that you mentioned earlier, it's so hard to just feel so powerless and just like have such a negativity about the future. So I think it's important to, I guess, convey the seriousness of it, but also show the hope and show the solution. So I mean, it's a really tricky one of getting young people involved. And it's also really unfortunate that in a lot of ways it has been left to us now. It is now our responsibility when in a lot of ways it shouldn't be because, you know, we've impacted the least and will be impacted by climate change the most. Do you think it drives anxiety in younger people? I think so. I think climate anxiety is a real issue that needs to be addressed. And it's really hard because, you know, when someone is feeling really anxious about the future relating to climate change, like, what can you say to reassure them? Because, you know, the reality is that it is looking pretty grim. And, you know, it's really hard to stay positive, which is why, as I mentioned in the speech, for me personally, like the way to tackle that is you just throw everything that you have at and you just make sure that you personally know that you're doing everything that you can so that you can sleep at night and say, well, at least I've impacted it and I've made the world as better a place as I can. Absolutely. So look, I might just have one final question if I may. So the technology roadmap was released today. It has five priorities and renewable energy is not one of the priorities. And the reason is because they've been defined as a mature technology. So my question is, is this a decision we should support? Joss, do you want to carry the baton on this one? So let me just preface it by saying, I haven't seen what the roadmap is. I've unfortunately been in meetings all days today. I would like to say that I find it incredibly, I find it amazing that the champions of the free market, the Liberal Party, would like to intervene in the gas, in the energy industry, in such a massive fashion, even going so far as to throw taxpayer money at building a gas-fired power plant. I could only assume that the gas is part of the roadmap. Is that correct? In actual fact, the roadmap's priorities are gases in the form of hydrogen production and storage. Both carbon capture and source sequestration are part of the priorities. But energy generation strategies like coal, gas, solar and wind are now all bunched together and are not a priority. Okay. So carbon capture, to go to talk about what Dave was talking about before, carbon capture technology has been around for a long time. And there is not a single case of it actually working in an economic sense. So I think that sort of indicates where we should be looking at, as that being part of our roadmap, I don't agree with that. Soil sequestration, yep, 100% on board with that, because it is an important part of what we can do to reduce our carbon emissions and to sequester carbon in the solar... But from your perspective, have we solved the renewables problem? Should it not be, is it mature? Should we not have a... Absolutely not, no. There is no silver bullet for our energy requirements for the future. It's going to require a whole range of different technologies. Integrating those technologies is still a key challenge. We still have significant amount of work ahead of us to make it integrate as well as we need it to. It's also that the technology side of things and going back to the human side of things, we also need to be aware that we need to change the way... We can't continue living the way that we are, I think is ultimately the point. Well, I think that actually, sadly, is a remarkably good point to finish. On that note, I think that's a very good point to stop. I'm really sad. I'd like to keep having this conversation. I've really enjoyed myself this evening. I think it's been brilliant. And I hope you at home have also enjoyed this evening's lecture and the panel discussion. And I would just like to thank our panel again. You've all been absolutely fantastic. Thank you for engaging in such lively debate, such intelligent and cogent debate across all these aspects that we've covered this evening. I'd like to thank you at home for listening and thank you for all of your questions. Again, I'm just sad that we couldn't get through all of those questions that have come through. Thank you for sending them through. What I'd like to do now is to encourage you all to stay connected with this Looking Ahead lecture series, which I think is brilliant. And you'll be joining our Deputy Vice Chancellor in the next lecture, Professor Janet Nelson. She's going to examine how research, innovation and partnerships actually can deliver the highest possible impacts for regional advances. It would be a fantastic lecture and a fantastic panel discussion. I certainly will be very interested to see where that discussion leads us. And that next lecture is going to be on Tuesday, the 27th of October. So put it in your diaries and we look forward to seeing you again then. All right, from all of us to all of you. Good night. Thanks very much.