Prayer Flags on Nepalese Mountains

By Aarushi Gupta
Staff Writer

The Institution of International, Comparative, and Area Studies (IICAS) at UCSD recently hosted two speakers, Nithya Ramanathan from UCLA and Alex Zahnd from UCSD, to speak about their efforts in “High and Low Tech Solutions that Improve Health and Combat Climate Change in South Asia”. Both speakers hail from impressive engineering backgrounds, and currently work on developing stoves in India and Nepal to reduce emissions of black carbon, which is both a health hazard and impacts our climate through the formation of brown clouds.

It was interesting to compare Ramanathan and Zahnd’s approaches to similar problems. They both want to solve the stove issue in South Asia, however, Ramanathan wanted to control black carbon emissions to ensure the safety of the environment whereas Zahnd is more concerned with the implications of the black carbon on the health of local residents. Both individuals have recognized one key factor that has distinguished their work from the work of other NGOs and non-profit organizations in the area. Instead of changing the lifestyle and customs of the towns and villages that they work with, Ramanathan and Zahnd have centered their studies around making the solutions fit into the existing culture of the different cities they work in. This was, by far, the most impactful part of their talk; understanding the areas in which the people live and tailoring solutions to the resources available and the present conditions should be by far the most important priority for NGOs involved anywhere. As Zahnd said, “If I design an excellent piece of machinery but the native people can’t use it, then I have failed.” Throughout the talk, both speakers emphasized their efforts to battle the black carbon emissions caused by stoves and other energy needs and keeping these efforts in the context of where they came from and where they would be used.

An engineer with a social purpose, Nithya Ramanathan’s drive to help and better the lives of residents in India is evident as soon as she begins her presentation. Her willingness to combine her humanitarian efforts with the empirical process of a research study is a testament to her success with past work in developing sensors to measure black carbon levels in homes. In developing new stoves for the residents of Khairatpur in Uttar Pradesh, India, Ramanathan’s first priority was to ensure that the reduced emission stoves would be fueled by already available sources instead of introducing new goods and products that would be too expensive for the townspeople. While this may have been more work on Ramanathan and Project Surya’s part, it is actually more beneficial for their endeavor, because it means that the people will actually use their modified devices, instead of letting all the work lay to waste because it wasn’t usable in the community that it was developed for.

When Zahnd was narrating his story in Nepal and the work that he has done there to contribute to the community, he emphasized the concept of “Holistic Community Development”, which really means focusing on the overall development of the area, not just on one aspect. This is important because while each area of development is important and has its virtues individually, the development of these ideas as a whole means more to the community. The four characteristics of HCD that Zahnd emphasized were pit latrines, stoves, access to drinking water, and lighting. Together, he and his NGO believe that these elements will improve the overall quality of life as well as increase the availability of electricity in remote areas of Nepal. He also wanted to design more efficient equipment that would use the native energy sources available in the area, while performing the work in a better way than before. According to Zahnd, the time it takes for the village women to obtain all the wood from the neighboring jungle is an entire day’s work, and the families use on average 20 to 30 kilograms of wood a day. This is because not only are they burning wood for energy to make meals, but also to keep warm in subzero temperatures. Because this talk was coupled with Ramanathan’s, the focus was on stoves and how they were improved. Zahnd developed a stove that could minimize the amount of wood needed for cooking, by incorporating several different components into one master stove, which has now been accepted as a government standard in Nepal. However, problems are arising regarding the integrity of these stoves and manufacturers mimicking Zahnd’s stove, but with cheaper materials, which makes these stoves less durable and less expensive. However, if a family has to buy one 2000-rupee stove, it’s a lot cheaper than having to buy five knock-offs at 1000 rupees. The corruptibility of the Nepali government is to blame, because they are allowing more elementary stoves to be comparable to the national standard, effectively cheating its citizens of limited resources.

Image by Nick Kenrick


 photo wherescienceandpolicymeet_zpsb68b5864.jpg

By Melanie Emr
Staff Writer

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is an international environmental treaty negotiated between 194 parties. Every year since 1995, the conference congregates as the Conference of the Parties (COP) to assess efforts and progress in addressing climate change. Last November, the city of Warsaw in Poland hosted the 2013 COP. The goals of the COP were to promote sustainable development, stimulate green investments and discuss how to finance environmental protection activities. I sat down with Lauren Linsmayer, a Ph.D. student at the University of California, San Diego’s (UCSD) Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Lauren researches marine biology and plays an active role in the interdisciplinary community at UCSD. Recently, she gave a presentation in front of a panel of seasoned ocean scientists at an event sponsored by the U.N. entitled “Ocean Acidification-the other CO2 Problem.” Her talk on the biological and ecosystem implications of ocean acidification can be found here. I sat down with Lauren to discuss her work. She detailed her unique experience at the COP, gave a political analysis of the COP’s goals and shed further light on her research regarding corals and ocean acidification.

To whom did you present your research? What parties were involved?

I presented at one of ten official U.N.-sponsored events during the COP. My event was the only one that focused on the ocean, specifically on the topic of “Ocean Acidification: The Other CO2 Problem.” The event was full house, standing room only.  While we did not take attendance or record what organizations or delegations the audience members represented, the crowd included a diverse mix of delegates, non-governmental organizations and other observer organizations that represented a vast geographical diversity. During the Q&A after the formal presentations, we received questions from representatives of developed and developing countries around the world. Those from coastal and developing nations especially wanted to hear about ocean acidification’s effect on their coastlines and economies as well as what they can do to adapt.

Could you explain how vital coral reef health is to the world and how greenhouse gases are threatening them?

Coral reefs are both ecologically and economically significant. Not only are reefs beautiful, majestic and awe-inspiring, they also support services that generate an estimated $30 to $375 billion per year globally. These services include reef-based fisheries, tourism, medicine and shoreline protection.  We call coral reefs the rainforests of the sea because they host incredible diversity. While they cover less than one percent of the earth’s surface, they support nearly a quarter of all ocean species, many of which depend on reefs for food and shelter. The role of coral reefs in supporting global fisheries is especially important in developing countries where most people rely on reef fish for protein. Fish is the main protein source for one billion people. Fisheries employ around 10 percent of the world’s population, with 90 percent of those jobs being small-scale.

Even if you don’t live near the coast or have never had fish, coral reefs provide you with other services. A medicine you have taken may have been derived from a sponge found on a reef, or your favorite seafood item may rely on coral reefs to hide from predators or to find food.

The vitality of reefs depends largely on the complex structures and topography created by the hard corals themselves. Corals are small, anemone-like animals with symbiotic algae living in their tissues that harden by secreting calcium carbonate. Corals are generally slow growing; most shallow-water corals grow less than one centimeter annually.  This means it takes hundreds of thousands of years to build reefs as structurally complex as the Great Barrier Reef in Australia. The rate of change in ocean pH and carbonate levels experienced by corals today is much faster than anything experienced in at least the past 55 million and possibly the past 300 millions years, putting the reefs at serious risk.

What does your research suggest as key methods to limiting the effects of climate change on society? Do you believe these methods will be easily adopted in both developed and developing nations?

The only way to slow the rate of ocean acidification is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The entry of CO2 into the ocean is the main cause of the rapid rates of ocean acidification we see today. Therefore the only way to prevent further acceleration of this pH trend is to slow the rate of CO2 entering seawater.  There are currently no geoengineering solutions to slow ocean acidification; they all affect atmospheric warming but not acidification. Since plants and algae capture and store CO2 during photosynthesis, scientists have proposed farming macroalgae to sequester CO2 in the ocean and bring up the pH, thus making it more basic. This may have local impacts on reducing acidity levels, but the global implications are unknown.

Why should policy makers representing non-coastal societies at the COP care about ocean acidification?

Policy-makers in non-coastal societies should care about ocean acidification because it threatens a multitude of diverse resources that the ocean provides. Ocean acidification threatens to alter marine ecosystems and food webs by impacting the biology of organisms, which will likely impose major costs to seafood industries.

It’s important to note that ocean acidification works alongside many other man-made stressors of  the ocean. These stressors include rising temperatures, deoxygenation, rising sea levels, pollution, over-fishing and deep-sea mining.  The ocean has been treated like a vast, endless pool of resources for thousands of years. Now, it is time to treat it as the finite resource it is.

My colleague Natasha Gallo spoke about the phenomenon of ocean deoxygenation at the COP. To our knowledge, this was the first time this other highly important impact of climate change was discussed at a COP. Though the ocean provides up to half of the oxygen we breathe, it is losing oxygen. We’re seeing major expansions of hypoxic (low oxygen) mid-water zones around the world.  Since fish are very sensitive to low oxygen, this causes habitat compression for many fish species, which means they have to move to more oxygenated waters or face death.

Over 1,598 NGOs are admitted as observers to the COP. While you were at the COP, did you have an opportunity to interact or begin interesting dialogue with any environmental NGOs?

Working at the oceans booth that Scripps co-hosted with the Plymouth Marine Lab was a great opportunity to meet with people from different environmental NGOs as well as other organizations from around the world. I had an interesting conversation with a strategist from New Zealand working with the Climate Action Network.  He has been trying to push the New Zealand government to step up their efforts to reduce CO2 emissions. After informing him about ocean acidification, he thought about mitigating ocean acidification as a strategy for reducing CO2 emissions. New Zealand has some economically important fisheries that may be threatened by acidification and deoxygenation.  It was exciting to hear this political strategy develop around the science of ocean acidification. This experience made me realize the vast importance of scientists directly engaging with policy-makers and political activists to come up with creative solutions.  This realization was also reinforced when two of my colleagues and I serendipitously met with the Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC, Christiana Figueres.  She was thrilled to hear about our efforts to communicate science at the COP and said that she hopes to see more young scientists engaging with the policy arena. This positive reinforcement from her, along with our own success at the COP, is reason to continue our efforts of bringing young scientists from Scripps and UCSD to future COPs.

How is it different presenting your research to politicians at the COP than it is to scientists? How do you make your case more convincing and comprehensible to a non-scientific public audience? What was, in your opinion, the most difficult part about persuading politicians and their representatives to adopt new measures in their country that would mitigate climate change?

It can be a very daunting and difficult task to speak to policy-makers as scientists. Many scientists don’t even feel that they’re qualified to speak in such policy settings. However after seeing the important role that science can and should play in policy-making at the COP, I am more convinced than ever that these two worlds should intersect more often.

As scientists talking to policy-makers, there is a tendency to want to prescribe policy solutions, when in fact we are only qualified to present compelling scientific evidence that may suggest a policy action.  Recognizing the need for careful messaging and clear communication in policy settings, the Scripps Communications Office offered a free “crash course” in talking to the media and public.  In addition, when we arrived at the COP, we were lucky enough to be taken under the wing of Carol Turley, a senior scientist from the United Kingdom who is an expert communicator and has presented at many COPs.  For her crash course, she had us limit our core messages to three main points. She then walked us down to the press offices in the COP to obtain interviews. Our persistence paid off – we were the only non-press people who actually approached them. After talking to press from around the world, we finally obtained an interview with Reuters, which was then picked up by various online news sources. (A link to the interview can be found here).

Here’s some advice on communicating to policy-makers. You need to use very different strategies when talking to policy makers than when talking to other scientists.  Some strategies we used were being simple, stating our main message first, avoiding scientific jargon and using analogies and stories whenever possible.

Australia adopted a carbon tax in 2012 to limit pollution, but now the country is against it and wants it abolished. What can you say about Australia’s participation in the COP in Poland? What kind of example does it set for what should be done to address climate change?

Australia set a very poor example during the COP.  The Australian government had just transitioned a couple of months before the COP in November, and the new government has shown every intention to dismantle previous efforts to combat climate change. On day two of the COP, the Australian government announced new legislation to repeal the EU carbon cap and trade system (Emissions Trading System), to dismantle the Climate Change Authority (an independent advisory board to the government on climate change), and to dismantle the Climate Energy Finance Corporation (invests in clean energy). The very first item of business in the new Parliament has been to abolish the carbon tax, effective July 1, 2014.  During the rest of the COP, the Australian delegation continued to make it clear that they were not interested in reaching climate change mitigation solutions.  They failed to increase their carbon emissions reduction target, despite pressures from both developing and developed countries.  They also blocked a lot of progress during the Loss and Damage Mechanism (LDM) negotiations. The LDM is designed to give financial aid to developing countries from developed countries to assist in covering costs caused by climate change-related events.  The Australian Government’s resistance to funding the LDM led to a weak outcome for the language of that treaty. All this occurred during the immediate aftermath of the devastating effects of Typhoon Haiyan, which severely affected developing countries.

All of these failures on the part of the Australian government earned them a prestigious award, that of the Colossal Fossil. The environmental NGO Climate Action Network gave out this award to the country that did the least to advance climate change mitigation or adaptation during the [Warsaw] COP.

How will developing nations with limited financial access to resources be able to afford new sustainable technologies such as solar panels and wind turbines?

In 2010, the COP in Cancun established the Green Climate Fund (GCF), which is intended to raise $100 billion per year by 2020 to fund climate adaptation projects in developing countries. However, since its creation, it has remained more symbolic than literal because no funds have been raised yet.

The Green Climate Fund was intended to meet the goals of climate change mitigation set forth by the UNFCCC, including aid to developing countries. Their mission states that they aim towards “providing support to developing countries to limit or reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and to adapt to the impacts of climate change, taking into account the needs of those developing countries particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change.”

Clearly, there are many challenges in convincing developed countries to give large sums of money to the international community to combat climate change.  There has been some success on the company and non-profit level of increasing capacity in developing countries. We were lucky enough to meet with John Doherty, the Global Development Officer at Earth Networks, whose goal is to offer timely weather information to consumers, governments and enterprises through their WeatherBug brand. John’s role is to help with capacity building in developing countries to allow for prudent severe weather forecasting and warnings.

You have high aspirations of becoming a marine advocate after receiving your Ph.D..  How do you intend to use your experience at the COP to educate the general public about how we as a society can work together to mitigate the effects of climate change?

One of the main goals of going was to bring the COP experience back home in order to give other scientists and the public a sense of what happens at these high level policy meetings. We’re actually doing a public event for the organization in San Diego on March 6th to talk about our experience. Other public interactions include news articles like this one in the San Diego Union Tribune.  We also created a website,, to make the COP experience accessible to the public.

This experience was career altering for me. Attending the COP as a young scientist made me realize the importance of obtaining a marine science Ph.D. and gaining expert-level knowledge for whatever future arena I find myself working in, whether it be policy, academia, media or non-profit work.  Many people can walk around talking about climate change and spewing information but having a Ph.D. shows you are an expert and people are more likely to listen to you and trust you. I was honestly surprised to have been well received as a young, non-Ph.D. scientist at the COP. I had presumed people wouldn’t listen to me because I am still working toward expert-level knowledge. I was surprised by how much I knew and how much people respected my opinion. There is a unique and important role that young scientists and youth in general can play in combating climate change, and this is because we are the future generation. Our voice matters because we will experience the effects of climate change in the future, and it is also our problem to solve. Therefore, I encourage and hope that we can inspire other UCSD students to make their voices heard, because you may just be surprised by who will listen!

Image by DFAT photo library


By Melanie Emr

The most prominent and divisive debate concerning climate change internationally has been the respective responsibilities of nations in reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Australia is the highest per-capita emitter of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the developed world, contributing to biogeochemical imbalances on the earth’s surface (Fletcher 92). In an attempt to combat the environmental injustice occurring under the dynamic of extractive capitalism, Australia is currently promoting a sustainable capitalist methodology that aims to mitigate the effects of climate change on urban cities and to enable the progression of urban development.

Since the early 2000s, the country has experienced increasing desertification across the continent from intensive drought, a byproduct of a warming earth. The continent is increasingly vulnerable to devastating wildfires that are directly impacting the agricultural economy, destroying human livelihoods and disrupting biodiversity. The country is currently undergoing a record heat wave, escalating to an unprecedented 104.35 degrees (AFP 1), the most significant heat wave in Australian history according to the Bureau of Meteorology.

By 2008, half of Australia was in drought, leading to increased brush fires and thousands of casualties in 2009. The same pattern is currently reemerging as over a million acres of land were burned in 2012, rendering thousands of townspeople homeless and killing hundreds (AFP 1).

Meanwhile, the Australian economy is under threat from increased desertification and drought. The agricultural industry has been impacted severely by the drought and this poses new challenges to food production. Thus, higher temperatures, regional reductions in rainfall, decreased relative humidity and higher fuel availability are all likely to increase the intensity and frequency of future wildfires (Australian Commonwealth 78-90).

Another key issue in regards to spreading wildfires is the threat to biodiversity and ecosystem services. Ecosystem services represent the benefits human populations derive, directly or indirectly from ecosystem functions.Living organisms contribute to the life support system that humans depend on both for economic development and survival and represent a part of the economic value of the planet. Australia is an ecological ‘hotspot’ of biodiversity—it is one of 17 megadiverse countries, which is defined as a group of countries that harbor more than 70% of the Earth’s species. The specie extinction rate will increase as the global average temperature rises by just 1 or 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, and are likely to accelerate as temperature rises beyond 2 degrees Celsius. As the flames increasingly infringe on vegetation and rainforest, the services of carbon sequestration that protect against climate change are hindered due to excess CO2 from urban emissions pouring more easily into the atmosphere without natural storage centers (Commonwealth Australia 40-57).

The impact of climate change on cities will be more devastating and costly to national development in the long-term, meaning that countries must be responsible for all emissions produced in its own territory in order to reduce the global risks of climate change (UN Habitat 2009). Australia’s net energy emissions increased by 44% between 1990 and 2010 with the energy industries sector consisting of transportation, electricity generation and manufacturing accounting for 78% of emissions in 2010. Road transport in 2010 accounted for 86% of these 78% percent of emissions. Agriculture in rural zones contributed only 14% of net emissions (Department Climate Change Volume I), indicating that the atmosphere will absorb excess CO2 only if cities lower emissions (Mckibben 16).

As climate change spreads wildfire across the continent, urban centers are increasingly at risk being in nature’s line of “retaliatory” fire. Nearly all major Australian cities are experiencing the effects of reductions in rainfall from drought. More than 80 percent of the Australian population lives within 50 km of the coastline, which are high-risk zones for floods, water level rise and storms as nature “retaliates” against urban construction (IPCC 122-137).

The current Australian government was elected on the promise of fighting global warming, but the economic slowdown “cooled its ardor,” delaying plans for carbon emission reduction. With that being said, contemporary Australia is finally implementing methods of environmental justice and alternative development to reduce its urban carbon footprint. The Australian government has promulgated an economic sustainability discourse. The short-term costs to industry in adopting alternative development will eventually lead to long-term benefits, not only for the regeneration of land’s biodiversity and ecosystem services, but for the economic benefit of the capitalist and the laborer as well.

The politics of climate change have emerged within Australia through the construction and contestation of concepts of obligation and responsibility (Bulkeley 1). In response to the UN recognizing Australia as a large emitter of greenhouse gases, Prime Minister Howard said in 1997 that the Australian Federal government, “has an obligation to defend and protect Australian interests, Australian jobs, Australian industry and to future generations of Australians to play an effective role in the global reduction of greenhouse gas emissions” (Bulkeley 436).

The responsibilities for climate risk are entrenched in the economically efficient actions of governments and industries. Australia introduced a price on carbon in July 2012 that requires businesses emitting over 25,000 tons of CO2 to buy emissions permits (Clean Energy 2). Implementation of such measures requires heated negotiations between the federal government and the capitalists because partnership and cooperation is imperative to implementing policy for climate change regulation. The carbon price is essential to transforming the Australian economy, enabling the nation to produce industries and jobs with less pollution.
An incentive for financial investment in climate change technologies is rooted on the basis that action on climate change will produce business opportunities, as new markets are made in low-carbon energy technologies and other low-carbon goods and services. Such markets could be worth hundreds of billions of dollars each year, and employment in these sectors will expand accordingly (Fletcher 92-99).

Businesses, however, have reacted negatively to the carbon tax. The Australian Industry Group (AI Group) survey shows company power price rose due to the carbon tax by 14.5 percent. This is well above the 10 percent increases the federal government has so far been prepared to concede. This has posed limitations on industrial development and, resultantly, on the price allocated to workers’ salaries. The opposition party says the additional cost is an example of how the carbon tax is worsening job uncertainty and elevating the cost of living (AAP 1).

Tony Abbot, leader of the conservative coalition seeks to repeal the tax in the 2013 elections if his coalition wins the lower house. However, voters, including both those invested in industry and the laborers themselves, are losing confidence in the promises of the carbon tax under the pressures of rising energy costs and the federal government’s inability to maintain costs below the 10 percent threshold (AAP 1).

In order to produce voter optimism over the carbon tax, representatives need to frame the issue as a progressive tool of investment that will ensure a more secure and productive future through producing new jobs and sustaining ecosystem services for development purposes. ‘Sustainability science’ discourse must be politicized as it is introduced into society, changing human behavior from the local to the global level through newfound incentives to adopting new Green technologies (Reid 918). The government must be willing to readjust its public spending to fund and engage a new generation of researchers in the social, economic, natural, health and engineering sciences in the needed research (Reid 917).

The Australian Climate Change Science Program (ACCSP) aims to improve public understanding regarding the causes, nature, timing and consequences of climate change so that government, industry and the community are better informed on how to reduce the carbon footprint. The emergence of the ACCSP comes at an opportune moment along with the introduction of the carbon tax, which symbolizes the tentative introduction of sustainable capitalism in Australian society. The program addresses six themes: understanding the key influences on climate change in Australia, improving the modeling of the climate system and of climate change assessments of climate variability and extreme events, regional climate change projections, international research collaboration, and coordination and communication. Thus, the ACCSP is aimed at integrating the human economy with ecology so that the business sector is made aware of the impacts of their anthropocentric industries.

By fostering active communication with the international community into their scientific developments, the ACCSP is able to integrate local scientific experience with international knowledge. The ACCSP makes local and regional communities aware of how the effects of their unsustainable activities contribute to a more universal impact of global climate change. In assessing and politicizing how the root causal factors of global climate change are derived even at the local level, it is integrating the local with the global in the quest towards sustainable development.

Sustainability science has provided scientifically compelling evidence that every individual contributes his or her individual carbon footprint to the global footprint, and reducing the latter requires changing individual human behavior. The ACCSP is an institution that will foster motivation for businesses to firmly adhere to the carbon tax.

‘Sustainability science’ discourse is promoting the firm implementation of the carbon tax by spreading scientific knowledge and awareness of the devastating effects of climate change in every arena of Australian society. An informed and educated society can effectively mobilize and produce convincing arguments as to why businesses should adhere to the carbon tax. Thus, sustainability science creates a motivating force of political pressure from the bottom to reach the top levels of government and large industries.
Limiting climate change risks requires that cooperation be fostered from the local to the global levels of society, in order to blur the lines between the ecology and the economy. Such diversity of cooperation enables an integrative and symbiotic relationship to develop between man and nature.

In the current global trend, international global integration is prioritized over urban-ecological interdependencies (Grimm 1). As our economic development has “broken” the environment, nature is retaliating through climate change. We must develop economically in order to meet the needs of growing consumption. However, the quest for sustainable development to combat climate change entails that human and nature, the economy and ecology, the local and the global, become integrated into a symbiotic relationship. Man must learn to meet the economic needs of the present while living within the regenerative capacity of the biosphere. Australia is a model nation that is boldly instituting policy into its capitalist system, promoting a need for all levels of society to participate financially in combatting environmental injustice. However, Australia is a developed nation with the financial resources and democratically stable institutions that foster both coalescence and compromise. The international community, namely the UN, has the responsibility to apply the arena of climate change as a site that instills proper governance in developing nations before policy can be implemented that radically transforms their modern capitalist industries.

Works Cited

Mckibben, Bill. Eaarth: Making a Life on a Tough New Planet. Times Books.New York, 2010.

“About the Mechanism” (
Australian Government.Australia’s Biodiversity and Climate Change.Commonwealth
of Australia. 2009.

Australian Associated Press(AAP). “Carbon Tax Must be Stopped:Abott”. January 29, 2013.

Australian Federal Press (AFP).“Wildfires Rage in Australia”
rage-in-australia-20131#ixzz2KWtUgOHG January 15, 2013.

Bulkeley, Harriet. Governing Climate Change: The Politics of Risk Society?University of Cambridge.

Royal Geographical Society. 5 July, 2001. Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency 2010, Australia’s Emissions Projections 2010. Canberra, ACT. Volume 1.

Fletcher, Robert. Capitalizing on Chaos: Climate Change and Disaster Capitalism. Ephemera
Articles.Theory and Politics in Organization. Volume 12:92-117.

Grimm, Nancy et al. “Global Change and the Ecology of Cities”. Science 319, 756 (2008).

IPCC 2007, Climate Change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability: Climate Change in Australia. Contribution of WorkingGroup II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, M. Parry, O. Canziani, J. Palutikof, P. van der Linden & C. Hanson (eds), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

O’Connor, James. Is Sustainable Capitalism Possible?: The Political Economy and the Politics of Ecology. Guilford Press. 1994.

United Nations Human Settlements Programme (2009). Planning sustainable cities: global report on human settlements 2009. London ; Sterling, VA: Earthscan. (pp. 114-115).

Image by Sherk Graham