EU-AU Knowledge Network

It has become increasingly apparent that leaders at the local and subnational level must think outside the box in order to match the results of past performance and simultaneously adapt to accelerating changes. From the Covid-19 global pandemic to social justice issues relating to the climate crisis, decision makers are under increasing pressure to respond quickly and effectively to challenges whilst proactively mitigating against the consequences.    

This is where digitization and digital innovation enter the scene.  

Digitalization and digital innovation are transforming the current landscape of sustainability and climate action, and have the potential to create even more change in the coming years. Meaning the integration of digital technologies into everyday life to change the way all of us interact and live, digitalization should work hand in hand with sustainability and be leveraged in multiple sectors. 

What does this mean in practice? An increase in data facilitates increased precision for reporting and monitoring our current situation, and accurately predicting future trajectories so leaders can make more informed decisions at the local level. Digital innovation can also encourage behavior change via micro-rewards enabled through Blockchain technology. In addition, collecting data from communities through a bottom-up approach enhances the citizen-science interface and provides valuable information that reflects the real time functioning of a city. 

Against this backdrop, Pourya Salehi presents the impacts of digital innovation on the domain of finance. We have entered an era of exciting new funding mechanisms, which is a catalyst for mobilizing other essential resources needed for climate action. As said by the UN Secretary General, “digital technologies which are revolutionizing financial markets can be a game changer in reaching our shared objectives”. Pourya’s presentation explores citizen-centric financial systems and examines the benefits this has for both community members and local governments.  

Australia has long been a climate policy laggard among developed countries. The Morrison Coalition Government has done nothing to improve this record, as highlighted by its performance at the Glasgow COP in 2021. Indeed during the period from 2014 through to the present – under successive Coalition governments (Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison) – national climate policy has been marked first by climate policy reversals and then inaction both in terms of proclaimed ambition and policy. Meanwhile, since its loss in 2019, Labor has remained quiet on this contentious issue. And yet, paradoxically, during this period, Australia’s greenhouse emissions have continued to drop. 

Australians will go to the polls in May this year. This seminar will speculate about the possible role of climate policy in the 2022 national election campaign, and will consider possible climate policy scenarios – in the context of the ‘performance paradox’ – for the period which follows.

This event has been organised with the financial support of the European Union’s Partnership Instrument. The opinions expressed are the sole responsibility of the speakers and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Union.

Taking effective action on climate change is more urgent than ever, but cities across the world are still hamstrung by limitations on their ability to efficiently look to and learn from other cities. Although tens of thousands of cities across the globe are each implementing numerous actions to tackle this critical problem, extremely little information about these activities is available in easy-to-access formats leading most practitioners to preferentially seek information from their immediate neighbours rather than pursue any kind of systematic investigations. Furthermore, due to the lack of inter-compatibility in how activities are described and measured, it is extremely challenging to perform effective analysis and other forms of investigation on what cities are doing. Although there is some effort made to consolidate city-level activities (examples including the Data Portal for Cities and the CDP Open Data Portal) these repositories do not currently provide cities with effective ways to interrogate and understand the data to inform decision-making. We have observed that this lack of direct connection to practitioners leads to a lowering of perceived value and to inadequate or infrequent submission of further data. 

This lack of sustained and robust data input from cities is an extremely critical issue with the research community as well. Poor documentation and standardization in city activity classification provides serious barriers to both learning from, and providing guidance, to municipal practitioners.

In response to this Ironbark, in conjunction with Innovate4Cities, developed a database which has been further expanded into a new tool called CityCAD. Both tools have been developed using a new approach to documenting city-level activities, with a specific focus on functionality and engagement for municipal practitioners and associated staff. This approach has been specifically developed based on the ways in which cities design their activities with the intention to connect directly into decision-making pathways. Through doing this, we have been able to identify numerous ways of providing ongoing value to practitioners as well as providing many benefits to researchers and other stakeholders. 

This seminar will review the structure and function of CityCAD focusing on how it addresses current barriers to knowledge transfer. We will also explore some of the ancillary benefits it provides, and design principles for interfacing to city practitioners to facilitate improved practice in stakeholders with a range of technical and analytical capabilities.

This event has been organised with the financial support of the European Union’s Partnership Instrument. The opinions expressed are the sole responsibility of the speakers and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Union.

Australia’s population is highly urbanised and increasingly coastal. As climate change impacts increase, Australia’s urban population will be progressively more exposed to many of these impacts, including sea level rise, urban heat, more intense storms and rainfall events, bushfires and drought. These complex challenges and impacts require a wide suite of responses, in addition to the necessary climate change mitigation actions that cities must undertake. Urban greening can make a significant contribution to climate change action in cities, as well as contributing to a range of other valuable functions, benefits and services. For example, vegetation is one of the most effective means to address urban heat, therefore contributing to both adaptation and mitigation efforts (the latter through a reduced use of artificial cooling). There is increasing recognition of the interlinkages between addressing both climate change and biodiversity ‘emergencies’. This seminar explores urban greening implementation and policy approaches, before highlighting current research examining the integration of climate change action across the built environment.

Judy's sources for this presentation include:

• Bush, J. 2020. The role of local government greening policies in the transition towards nature-based cities. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 35, 35-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2020.01.015
• Bush, J., Ashley, G., Foster, B. & Hall, G. 2021. Integrating green infrastructure into urban planning: developing Melbourne’s Green Factor Tool. Urban Planning, 6. https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v6i1.3515
• Bush, J. & Doyon, A. 2019. Building urban resilience with nature-based solutions: how can urban planning contribute? Cities, 95, 102483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.102483
• Hürlimann, A. C., Warren-Myers, G., Nielsen, J., Moosavi, S., Bush, J. & March, A. 2021. Towards the transformation of cities: a built environment process map to identify the role of key sectors and actors in producing the built environment across life stages. Cities, 103454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2021.103454
• Parris, K. M., Barrett, B. S., Stanley, H. M. & Hurley, J. (eds.) 2020. Cities for people and nature, Melbourne: Clean Air and Urban Landscapes Hub. https://nespurban.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Cities-for-People-and-Nature.pdf 

This event has been organised with the financial support of the European Union’s Partnership Instrument. The opinions expressed are the sole responsibility of the speakers and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Union.

Climate change is one of the greatest global challenges facing humanity. Scientists have worked tirelessly to collect data, run models, and put together intergovernmental reports on the state of the climate and what may happen if we do not act. The efforts to collate evidence and communicate about it have truly been history making – and as climate scientists argue in the latest IPCC report AR6: “it is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere” (Summary for Policymakers, p. 4). 

But why is it that in 2022, governments still lag in making meaningful reductions to greenhouse gas emissions? Does the unequivocal evidence not speak for itself? This seminar will argue that, unfortunately, it does not. Climate change may be a scientific problem, but it has evolved into a deeply divided social political issue, especially in western democracies. We see deep polarisation in Australia on climate change, and communication is key in breaking the deadlock and being able to build a social mandate for climate change. This talk will explore the social science of climate change and highlight that if we begin to understand the complexity in humans, we can foster meaningful climate change engagement and reach solutions. 

Nic’s presentation will be followed by a Q&A discussion with Dr Linden Ashcroft, Lecturer in Climate Science and Science Communication from the School of Geography, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences. 

Nic's sources for this presentation: 

• James Hansen speech 1988: https://pulitzercenter.org/sites/default/files/june_23_1988_senate_hearing_1.pdf  
• Haslam, S. A. (2000). Psychology in organizations: The social identity approach. Psychology in Organizations: The Social Identity Approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446278819 https://sk.sagepub.com/books/psychology-in-organizations 
• The Royal Society. (1985). The Public Understanding of Science. Royal Society. Retrieved from https://royalsociety.org/- https://royalsociety.org/~/media/royal_society_content/policy/publications/1985/10700.pdf /media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/1985/10700.pdf 
• Suldovsky, B. (2017). The Information Deficit Model and Climate Change Communication. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Science. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.301 https://oxfordre.com/climatescience/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228620-e-301 
• The Australia Institute. (2021). Climate of the Nation 2021: Tracking Australia’s attitudes towards climate change and energy. Canberra. Retrieved from https://australiainstitute.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/211013-Climate-of-the-Nation-2021-WEB.pdf 
• van der Linden, S. (2017). Determinants and Measurement of Climate Change Risk Perception, Worry, and Concern. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Science (Issue April). https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.318 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2953631 
• Kahan, D. M., Peters, E., Wittlin, M., Slovic, P., Ouellette, L. L., Braman, D., & Mandel, G. (2012). The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Climate Change, 2(10), 732–735. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1547 https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1547 
• Hornsey, M. J., Harris, E. A., & Fielding, K. S. (2018). Relationships among conspiratorial beliefs, conservatism and climate scepticism across nations. Nature Climate Change, 8, 614–620. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0157-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0157-2 
• Colvin, R. M., & Jotzo, F. (2021). Australian voters’ attitudes to climate action and their social-political determinants. PLoS ONE, 16(3), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248268 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0248268 
• Howe, L. C., MacInnis, B., Krosnick, J. A., Markowitz, E. M., & Socolow, R. (2019). Acknowledging uncertainty impacts public acceptance of climate scientists’ predictions. Nature Climate Change, 9(11), 863–867. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0587-5 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0587-5 
• McLoughlin, N., Corner, A., Clarke, J., Whitmarsh, L., Capstick, S., & Nash, N. (2019). Mainstreaming low-carbon lifestyles. https://climateoutreach.org/reports/mainstreaming-low-carbon-lifestyles/ 
• Fielding, K. S., Hornsey, M. J., Thai, H. A., & Toh, L. L. (2020). Using ingroup messengers and ingroup values to promote climate change policy. Climatic Change, 158(2), 181–199. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02561-z https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-019-02561-z 
• Goldberg, M. H., van der Linden, S., Maibach, E., & Leiserowitz, A. (2019). Discussing global warming leads to greater acceptance of climate science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116(30), 14804–14805. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1906589116 https://www.pnas.org/content/116/30/14804 
• Gustafson, A., & Rice, R. E. (2020). A review of the effects of uncertainty in public science communication. Public Understanding of Science, 29(6), 614–633. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662520942122 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0963662520942122 
• James Hansen image: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:James_Hansen.jpg 
• Q and A program by ABC, video located on YouTube channel “abcqanda” URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXuRvvKLwtw   
• Shi, J., Visschers, V. H. M., Siegrist, M., & Arvai, J. (2016). Knowledge as a driver of public perceptions about climate change reassessed. Nature Climate Change, 6(8), 759–762. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2997 https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2997 

This event has been organised with the financial support of the European Union’s Partnership Instrument. The opinions expressed are the sole responsibility of the speakers and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Union.

Investors and regulators around the world are increasingly looking to understand how climate change could cause financial and economic harm. They are most concerned about the systemic financial risks associated with large-scale investments being held in assets which will be impacted by the climate crisis and its concomitant economic transitions. However, to date, the steps taken by industry groups and government to manage climate risks have focused on information disclosure from corporate actors (such as the Taskforce for Climate-related Financial Disclosure - TCFD). The logic of these initiatives is to create greater transparency and to enable capital markets to ‘price-in’ climate risks. 

But corporations are only one type of actor involved in investment markets. Governments have borrowed money for centuries from private and public lenders. Indeed, government debt is at historically high levels at present. How should investors, regulators and governments themselves manage climate risks associated with such sovereign lending? To date, investors and governments have been emphasising disclosure as a mechanism for managing sovereign climate risk. But governments are structurally different to corporate entities, and many of the risks they face cannot be managed by disclosure itself. Indeed, disclosure may lead to significant ethical implications for countries. If not disclosure, what other approaches could sovereigns, investors and regulators take to manage such risks? In this talk we elaborate why sovereign climate risk is important and set out an initial framework for moving beyond disclosure in managing sovereign climate risk.   

This event has been organised with the financial support of the European Union’s Partnership Instrument. The opinions expressed are the sole responsibility of the speakers and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Union.

Agricultural nature-based solutions provide a sustainable, long-term approach to land management. Nature-based solutions aim to restore land, improve vegetation, and enable farms to be more resilient while mitigating and adapting to climate change. As awareness about climate change and environmental issues continues to increase, there is an expectation that agricultural production occurs in a low emission or carbon neutral environment. Agricultural industries have committed to carbon neutral targets in Australia, which will help food producers to meet global environmental expectations and to remain competitive into the future. Dr Natalie Doran-Browne’s presentation discusses some of the options available to farmers to reduce or offset on-farm greenhouse gas emissions, through efficient and regenerative farm management practices, including nature-based solutions.

In addition to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, nature-based solutions provide co-benefits that improve farm performance and resilience. Dr Rachelle Meyer’s presentation provides information on the co-benefits of high amounts of soil carbon and integrating trees into farm operations. This will include preliminary results from the “Trees on Farm: maximising co-benefits” project which aims to develop a database of co-benefits and disadvantages of planting trees on farm and quantify the value of co-benefits. Trends in the literature reviewed for the database and reported co-benefits will be discussed.

This event has been organised with the financial support of the European Union’s Partnership Instrument. The opinions expressed are the sole responsibility of the speakers and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Union.