I've been doing a lot of work on my research paper about educational issues during the civil rights movement, and the pieces are starting to fall into place. I found this document by the Council of Federated Organizations in the Wisconsin Historical Society's Freedom Summer Collection. I've done some close reading, and I think it will be a good fit for my paper. I just have to figure out the best use for this source. This document is pretty specific, so I don't think it would be a good fit for my exploration of broad themes. Instead, it might be a good support for some of my claims or arguments. One of the claims I make is that black students were underserved by the educational system in segregated states. This quote from the essay would support my claim, but maybe not as strongly as I would like. After all, when I analyzed this document, I noticed that it used a lot of charge to language. This document might be too subjective to convince my readers that my claim is true. I think this document is a better fit for one of my arguments. I'm arguing that an important part of training the volunteer teachers for the freedom schools was getting them into the right mindset. Where the charged language might hurt my objective claims, it will help strengthen my argument because it is a good example of the training materials that were provided to teachers. I have a plan for fitting this primary source into my research, but I also have to think about how I will fit it into the format of my actual paper. This document is mostly text, so it will be pretty easy. I can transcribe this passage as a quote or paraphrase it in my own words. In either case, I will place the passage in context and I will cite the original source using the citation style I've chosen. If I were using a different type of source, I might have to work a little harder to incorporate it into my research paper. For example, I found this Freedom Day poster in UWM's March on Milwaukee digital collection. I can transcribe the text, but the people reading my paper would miss out on all the poster's great visual information. If the image won't lose its impact by shrinking it down and maybe printing it in black and white, I can insert it into my text that way. But if I have other options, like this transcript from an oral history interview that I also found on the March in Milwaukee collection, I'll want to pick the one that has the most impact for my particular project. In this case, I think the oral history will be the best fit. As I keep researching and working on my paper, I notice that I still have a few gaps. In particular, I still don't have anything to back up my claim that black students were underserved in segregated school districts. The sources I've found so far have all been subjective. In my next round of searching, I'm going to look for more objective information, maybe something like literacy statistics. As I continue my research, I'm sure I will find new information that will strengthen and maybe even reshape my research.


I was in Swiss Alps of just about ten days ago and I was doing a video for the Swiss Tourism Department Ministry because they supported our safe soil movement. I was asked by this official, Sadhguru, where do you take your vacations? I said, what is that? My life is a vacation because working eighteen hours a day is my vacation because when you're doing something that you really, really care for, you don't seek vacations. Well, if there is physical exhaustion, of course you can take a rest, you can go somewhere, but people want to be away from work because, uff, it's so burdensome. It is burdensome only because it doesn't mean so much to you. So if you don't love what you're doing, either you must give it up or you must fall in love. That's the things you must do.


We are now going to look at cyber incivility. Now while in our day to day lives in our actual societies, being civil is a very important human trait. In fact, I would go as far as to say that being civil is a trait which actually distinguishes them or sets it apart from the animal world. Humans are civil and that is why we say that as mankind has involved, the evolution actually meant that our societies became more and more civilized. Similarly, as a virtual variant of our actual societies are cyber societies and humans tend to exhibit certain kind of unique behaviors in those cyber societies, it is very important to have civil behavior in the cyber world also and actively discourage and prevent any kind of cyber incivility. Cyber incivility can be defined as any behavior that violates social norms, ethics or legal principles in the online environment. Cyber incivility can occur on various platforms including social media, online forums, messaging apps, the comments sections even through emails and personal messages. Cyber incivility can cause harm to individuals including emotional distress, reputational damage, psychological impact and when cyber incivility causes several harms to individuals, as a whole it causes several harms to organizations. Now let's look at examples of certain behaviors or certain attitudes which qualify as cyber incivility. Cyber bullying for instance is one major example of an uncivil behavior which we can exhibit in the cyber domain. Cyber bullying includes any kind of speech or any kind of text or any kind of audio or video which can be threatening to an individual or which can cause any kind of fear or intimidation to a certain individual. It can include any kinds of negative comments or an aggressive behavior, even a passive aggressive behavior towards someone's appearance, their life choices, their ethnicity, their sexual orientation and their day to day actions at all. So cyber bullying in general is an uncivil behavior if it is done in the actual physical word and therefore cyber bullying is one of the prime examples of a civil incivility. Then trolling, now what is trolling? Trolling is that let's say if somebody has posted a certain message or expressed a certain opinion in the online world you know that person is as a result of that message or as a result of that post is made fun of or made accountable for what they have said or is threatened as a result of what they have said that is trolling. And if we carry out trolling it is again pretty much like cyber bullying and trolling and two can at times you know be a kind of cyber bullying both cyber bullying and trolling are some very obvious examples of cyber incivility. Thirdly an example of cyber incivility is hate speech. Now what is hate speech? Hate speech is that let's say you know saying derogatory or negative or rude things against a certain gender or a certain religion or a certain race or certain personal characteristics or a certain organization or a certain country or a certain individual or a certain group.  So as hate speech can be very very dangerous in our day to day lives any kind of hate speech when it is done in the cyberspace is a major example of cyber incivility. Then looking at further more examples of what can be an incivil behavior in the cyber word doxing let's say is one of them. Doxing involves publicly revealing someone's personal information such as their address, their phone number, their email anything else let's say their grades for instance or you know their health condition for that matter but it has to be done with the intention of harassing them or threatening them. So again you know the doxing comes very closely in close proximity with privacy rights how a civil behavior in a civilized society requires that we respect other people's privacy similarly in the cyber word it is imperative that a civil behavior would require that we respect other people's privacy we do not reveal their personal details which can in any form you know harm them. Lastly another example of cyber incivility can be harassment which again is an umbrella term you know which which covers doxing which cover tolling which covers stalking which covers bullying you know so any kind of repeated or unwanted online behavior which can intimidate degrade or humiliate someone else you know and it could be by it could be excessive through excessive messaging it could be through let's say an apparently benign thing such as repeatedly tagging someone in a post it could be through creating fake accounts to impersonate someone else it could be you know through as I said through explicit trolling or explicit doxing so any kind of an online harassment behavior is comes under cyber incivility. Furthermore any kind of disrespectful comments whether it is through online messages whether it is through reply of emails and you know any messages which can be insulting which can be offensive which can be rude which can in which involve name calling which involves derogatory remarks which involve a certain kind of aggression or a bullying behavior is it comes under incivilized cyber behavior they come under cyber incivility then further sexting which refers to sharing explicit images or videos you know of someone without their consent at times is a form of revenge at times is a form of inflicting humiliation also of course comes under cyber crime but at a certain level you know it is again a major form of cyber incivility. Cyber incivility as it is obvious and in civil behavior it undermines positive online interactions it undermines healthy digital communities and it undermines productive online discourse. A cyber incivility you know prevents good digital citizenship and it hinders responsible online behavior what we need to do is we need to at an individual level first implement ourselves and then preach and encourage empathy respect constructive communication as a tool for combating cyber incivility further we can adopt certain mindful habits which can prevent cyber incivility we need to adopt them first ourselves then we need to adopt them at an organization level and then you know preach and promote that these are you know implemented across at a societal level which includes number one there is a need to have respectful communication whether it is through online messages whether it is through emails there is an utmost need and there needs to be a zero tolerance policy on you know on not having an disrespectful communication all communication even if it is something there is a matter of conflict even conflict needs to be addressed through respectful communication then I think another responsibility which falls on all of us is that we it is our responsibility that we educate ourselves with regards to a proper cyber civil behavior is what is okay what is not okay so that we are ourselves unknowingly also not infringing on other people's rights and other people's boundaries and other people's privacy so it's it's up to us that we educate ourselves with regards to a proper cyber civil behavior is and then we move on and you know educate others lastly and very importantly before sending any online messages before sending any posts think before you do it think about its impact think if it is not done in a way that it is infringing on anybody's rights or if it if it falls under hate speech or if it can you know if it if it can even borderline fall under harassment or bullying so be very mindful be very careful about the messaging your messages that you're sharing about the posts that you're putting on be very careful in doing so further as a good practice foster positive online communities you know positivity only leads to more positivity you know therefore encourage constructive discussions report any abusive behavior and support all those initiatives which are promoting digital civility and respect lastly it's our responsibility to report and block if you encounter civil instability utilize reporting mechanisms available on platforms and within your organization to flag offensive content or behavior utilize blocking features to limit interactions with individuals who engage in in cyber instability and know when cyber instability enters the paradigm of a cyber crime and therefore as responsible citizens as responsible digital citizens you know it is your responsibility it is my responsibility it is our responsibility you know to take action report such behavior and and and you know block any such behavior


Ubuntu is the most popular distribution out there. By far, the most people who use Linux are using Ubuntu. And that's really important because it means that the vast majority of new users who want to use Linux probably start with Ubuntu simply because it's the one they find on the internet that is the most popular. Most people are always going to choose the most popular thing because they're going to associate that popularity with it being the best thing. Now, we can have a debate over whether or not Ubuntu is the best distro all day long. And I guarantee you that the Linux community is never going to agree on that. It's just not possible. We can't agree on any distribution as the best one. We all have our favorites. And trying to point new users at the best one is just not a good thing. It's a fool's errand, right? It's just not something that is going to be possible. So pointing them at the most popular distro is what's most likely going to happen. And that happens to be Ubuntu. So for those of you who are either just getting into Linux or just getting into Ubuntu for the first time, what I thought I'd do today is talk about five things that you can do that will make Ubuntu way better out of the box. And they're all really, really easy. So let's go ahead and jump in. Okay. So the first one is to install GNOME Tweaks. Now basically what GNOME Tweaks is, is a application that you can install that will allow you to change and tweak several different things about the system. So you can do this by opening up the software center and then by searching GNOME Tweaks just like so. And it will take a second to get up there and then you hit install. It'll ask for your password and we'll install that thing. Now while we're waiting for that, basically what this allows you to do is allows you to go through and set certain settings that you aren't able to set by default. So these are settings that are not in the default settings panel. So let's go ahead and open this thing up. So hit the Windows key, which is also known as the meta key, and then type in tweaks. And that will bring up the icon you hit enter and it will open. Once it's opened, you may get a pop up here that says extensions have moved. We'll talk about GNOME extensions here in a minute, but let's just go ahead and focus on GNOME Tweaks to begin with. So this will actually allow you to do several things. It'll allow you to change the GNOME theme. So you can go through and change it to the dark theme, which we'll talk about dark theme here in a minute. You can change the cursor icons, all that stuff, and we'll talk about the shell and stuff later when we talk about extensions. You can change the wallpaper from here if you want to. This is not the only place you can change the wallpaper. You can also do that from the settings panel if you would like to do that. It's probably a better place to do it simply because it actually just shows you the wallpapers. But you can also change the lock screen wallpaper from here as well, which is not something you can do in the regular settings application. You can also control your system fonts from here, control several keyboard and mouse settings from here. All the startup applications can be controlled from here. I do believe that this is in the stock settings app as well, but I'm not sure about that. You can change several things about the top bar up here, including what the date and time actually shows up here so you can choose whether it shows the week, day, second, and so on and so forth. You can't change from the 24 to the wall power clock here. You do that in the settings panel, the regular open to settings panel. Here you can change several things about the window title bars, things like whether or not what happens when you double click, middle click, secondary click, and so on and so forth. The windows category will allow you to change several things about what happens when you open and spawn new windows and what happens when you hover over the windows themselves. And finally, you control what happens to workspaces when you spawn new ones. You can also control how many workspaces you have. So that is going to have tweaks. There's just a ton of stuff here that you can do. Now we'll actually be coming back to this here in a few minutes to do one of the other tweaks. So but I'm going to go ahead and close this for now. Now the next thing you'll want to do is figure out what you want to do about Snap. Now this is a very ambiguous tip.  For the most new users, don't worry about this tip at all. Just use it the way Ubuntu has meant to use it. If you find that you don't like Snaps later on once you've learned what Snaps actually are, you can then go through and disable them or use a different distro. But basically what I mean by this tip here is that out of the box Ubuntu comes with a lot of Snaps installed. Firefox, the GNOME Store, or the Software Center, and we can actually see what Snaps are installed. We zoom in here and do Snap List. And this shows that we have Firefox, several GTK themes, and the Snaps Store. All are Snaps. One of the reasons why this is a problem is because on cold launch, meaning that you've never launched the application before during your current session, your first launch of that application is going to be really slow. And there are several other things about Snaps that are just kind of annoying. Sometimes they don't play really well with themes. A lot of times the buttons up here have been disappearing, at least for me for whatever reason. And that's not a great thing, right? It's just sometimes they're broken. Sometimes they're really slow. And on top of that, the whole idea that they're controlled by Canonical, it's not necessarily the greatest thing. But you can use them. If you have no problem with any of the things that I just said, leave this the way it is. But if you don't care for Snaps, there are several things you can do. You can go through and tediously pull Snaps out of Ubuntu and uninstall SnapD and never have Snaps here installed. It's not the best solution simply because eventually you're going to go through and try to install something and in the background, it'll actually install Snap again and you'll end up with a Snap whether you want it or not. So getting rid of it is kind of a pain in the tuchus. What you can do instead is just ignore Snaps completely. You can pull Firefox off out of the Snap thing and install the Firefox binary. There are several tutorials online on how to do that. So if you want to find out how to do that, you can do that. You can do the same thing with the Snaps Store if you really want to or just ignore the Snaps Store completely and just use app. My recommendation would be to go through uninstall Snaps like this. So Snap, remove Firefox and then enter your password and it'll go through and uninstall Firefox and then you can go through and install the binary for Firefox if that's what you want to do or you can install a different browser. And another reason why you might want to go through and not use Snaps is simply because Flatpak is better. Now this is my opinion, but for me Flatpak is just better. So you can go through and use the Flatpak of Firefox if that's what you want to do. You can go through and install a lot of stuff from Flathub if that's what you want to do. For me, Flathub and Flatpak are just better than Snaps. You don't have a lot of the problems that you get with Snaps. They're not slow. They seem to be a little bit better on permissions and such. So there are a lot of benefits to using Flatpaks instead. Or you can just stick with Snaps. So this whole tip here is just to get you thinking about what you want to do. Most people probably just going to stick with Snaps. But the rest of you who are really not interested in using Snaps, I would just highly recommend ignoring Snaps, getting rid of Firefox, installing the binary, and then moving on with your day. They're using Flatpak or using apt instead of using any of the Snaps at all. One way or another, by the time you go through and install Ubuntu, this is a decision that you probably should make. The reason why you should make it is because you want to do the next thing. And the next tip is to install the GNOME extension manager. Now the GNOME extensions manager is an application that will allow you to do what it says on the tin, which is manage your extensions. Now, by default, this is not available on Ubuntu. So if we go back to the software center and we actually search for GNOME extensions manager, we're actually going to get nothing. It's not here. It's not available as a Snap. And the only thing that can be installed through the Snaps store here is Snaps. The GNOME extensions manager is just not there yet. Hopefully eventually they'll go through and actually package that as a Snap. That'd be cool. But instead, what you're going to have to do is go to FlatHub.org. And we're going to have to set up FlatHub in order to do this. But what we want to do is search for GNOME. And this is the one that we want right here. Now, in order to actually install this, we're going to have to have FlatPaks enabled. And in order to enable FlatPaks, you actually have to go through and do this. You click on Quick Setup at their homepage, click Ubuntu. Do this line first. So we're going to install FlatPak. And it will eventually ask you for your password if it hasn't already. Go down here and we need to do this part here. Might as well just copy and paste. Control Shift V in order to paste in the terminal. Hit Yes again. And then the next thing we need to do is do this one here. It's going to ask you for your password again. And then what we're going to want to do is do Pseudo Reboot. And then we can actually go back to the GNOME Extensions Manager. Extensions Manager. Right here. Click on this. Scroll all the way down. Copy this one here. Open up a terminal, Control Alt T, and paste that, which Control Shift V, hit Enter. It's going to ask you Yes. And then Yes again. It's going to install it. It might take a few minutes, depending on the speed of your internet. And then we'll show you what this does. Okay, once that's installed, you want to hit the Super key, which is the Windows key. Type in Extensions in order to do this, you'll actually have to learn how to spell. Unfortunately, that's the step that I've never actually been able to take. Now here's where it gets a little confusing because you're going to have two of them. This one here, if you open up by default. This one here just manages your installed extensions.  You can't do much with it. You can't install extensions. You can disable them. You can control the settings, but other than that, it does nothing. It does come by default. And it's the officially supported way of managing your extensions. So you might want to use it. For me, the one that works better is, again, if you type the appropriate thing is the Extensions Manager, which looks like this. Now it looks very similar. And you can see that this first screen does look like that extensions app that we just looked at. You can go through and manage the installed extensions. You can manage their settings and so on and so forth. What's cool about this is that you can actually go through and install extensions right from this application. If you did not have this, then you'd have to go about the traditional way of installing extensions, which is a tedious process to say the least. You'd have to go to, you'd have to go to this website here, and you'd find out that you have to install a browser extension, then you have to do this, and I'm not going to allow that. I don't need it. But that's how you'd go about doing it. It's not a great process. Then you'd have to open up the Extensions Manager or the extensions application, which we showed you. It's not great. The point is, if you have this here, if you went through the process of installing Flat Pack and going through and enabling Flat Hub and getting to this part, you can install extensions right from here. Now, why are extensions cool? It's because they allow you to extend the ability of the GNOME desktop, which is what Ubuntu uses. So for example, user themes. User themes will allow you to change the theme of the bar along the top and the drop-downs that come along with it. Even with GNOME tweak tool, you can't do that by default. You have to have this extension installed. Another extension that's really cool is called dash to dock, and you just search for this. Install this, install, and then you'll see that your bar moved along here down to the bottom. This actually has several settings. You can find the settings for dash to dock right here, and you can go through and change how that looks. You know, appearance, you can make it different themes. You can go through and auto hide if you want to do that. You can change whether or not the applications button is shown and so on and so forth. There's just a ton of stuff that you can do. And obviously, if you choose, you don't want that, you can just go through and disable it. And why didn't go back to the side? I don't know. I'm sure there's a way to change that if you wanted to. You'd probably have to uninstall dash to dock in order to actually get that to work, but we'll just go ahead and re-enable it. Sometimes that's re-enabled, which required me to actually log out and log back in because some things were broken. Now, that actually goes to show you my experience there is that sometimes things break with extensions. These are not officially supported, so sometimes with the extensions, things break. So that's the idea behind the economic extensions manager. There are hundreds of these things that you can go through and just kind of use. Now, like I said, your mileage may vary. Some things may not work well. Some of them may break something. If that happens, you can go through and install them fairly easily. I would highly recommend using this application here instead of going through and using the website like that I showed you earlier, because this one here will actually go through and tell you what can and can't be installed on your version of Ubuntu, like for example, this one here, not supported by this version of GNOME, so you can install it. So that really helps you from making a serious error of trying to install something that just would not work. Now, moving on to the next one. The next one is what I think is the most important tip that I can give you for Ubuntu. And that is this. Open up a terminal. Do sudo apt install vim. Enter your password and let it install vim. Now I'm not going to count this as a tip for everybody because most people probably are going to open up the terminal anyways and they'll never need to use vim. In the cases that they do, Nano is here for those people and they'll never have to use vim. For everyone else to make Ubuntu 100 times better, install vim. Why vim is not installed by default? I don't know. The reason why I like vim is because vim is awesome. It is the tool of the gods and if you have to edit text in the terminal, you should be using vim. That's just an opinion, but it's the right opinion. So moving on, like I said, I'm not going to count that one. That's just mostly, you know, opinion based. The next one is a very superficial way of making Ubuntu better. And that is enabling dark mode. So by default, this is what all of your applications look like. They're very, they're not as white as they could be, but they're definitely pretty bright. So in order to change the theme to dark mode, you can open up the tweak tool. Just like we did earlier, go to Appearance, go to the applications, Yaru dark, and that will change to dark mode. And this is way better than the light theme that is included by default. This should be default in my opinion, but it looks way better. So it's not necessarily something that's going to make you more productive or anything like that, but it does look better. So once that's done, that's the, that's the tip. The next tip on the list is to enable minimum, click to minimize. Now click to minimize is something that used to be enabled on Ubuntu by default, but it's no longer there. So let's just say we have this file manager open and we want to minimize it. Now you could go up here to the minimize button and do that just like you would normally, but a lot of times you're used to being able to click on the icon in your doc in order to get to minimize and that, and you can see me, I'm clicking on this and it's just, it's doing absolutely nothing. Now it will bring it back up if it's minimized already, but it's not going to minimize it for you. So in order to actually go through and enable, click to minimize, you need to enter a terminal setting. So we open up a terminal and let me actually go get this thing. I saved this and as you can see, this dark mode does not work very well in this term, in this text editor, but that's okay. We'll enter this command here, which I will paste down in the video description so you can actually find this to enter. And that's it. Now what we should be able to do is now click on this terminal icon and it will minimize it. Open up, minimize, open, minimize, cool, right? Now that is it for my tips for this time. I'm sure I'm going to find some more immediately after this video that we're way better, but that's beside the point. So if you have tips that can be used to make Ubuntu better, leave those in the comment section below. You can follow me on Twitter at Linuxcast. You can support me on Patreon at patreon.com slash Linuxcast. Before I go, I'd like to take a look at my current patrons. Today Devon, Patrick O, Marcus, Megalyn, Zex, Neftool, Steve, A, Sebrega, Linux, Eric, Mitchell, ArtCenter, CarpenterDead, Jeremy, Sean, Odin, Merton, Andy, P, Merrick, Camp Drashley, J-Dog, Peter, A, Crucible, Darkman, and St. Pilate, and Primus. Thanks everybody for watching. I'll see you next time.


In many parts of the country, where urban development have encroached upon the wildland areas, we have a long history of working with neighboring agencies and local cooperators during our fire responses. In other parts of the country, we're still building these relationships. This last fire season marked the 10-year anniversary of a tragic fire that took the lives of two volunteer firefighters near Cuna, Idaho, just outside of Boise. When the 1995 Point Fire started, resources from the local volunteer fire department and federal agencies responded.  Winds increased in the fire escape containment lines and eventually burned over the disabled engine. Both the victims were found inside the cab of their engine. The Point Fire was significant because it solidified the need for, among other things, mutual aid agreements, outlining incident command and control procedures, and communications between interagency cooperators. To hear about how this incident changed the way we do business, we talked to Mike Ellsworth from the BLM Boise district. In the past, most of the fires in the Boise foothills because of all the agencies going together and converging at the same time, usually resources were engaging at different aspects of the fire. When the IC and Unified Command became established, their biggest headaches were getting the span of control and accountability for all the resources that were on scene. By setting up a staging area, now the ICs and operations can hold the pulse of the fire and determine when those resources are going and have accountability for them after the resources get the proper briefing, the frequencies, and their assignments. It's been a process of getting together with the local cooperators. We've developed an Aida County Steering Committee where all agencies are represented. The North Aida County Fire Department, Boise City, Eagle, and all federal agencies and state agencies are represented. Through the Aida County Steering Committee, we've been able to develop the frequency plan, get together each year, and we do cross-training where we do, whether it's scenario-based, using sand tables. We've actually utilized this fire particularly for staff rides where the local agencies come out with us, and we go through lessons learned for all these. But the biggest thing is just getting people in the same room and learning what each other can do, having to face with the cooperators, and just getting to know each other and what the capabilities are, as long with the limitations for each other. One of the best things we've been able to draw out of the Aida County Steering Committee is the pre-programmed frequency plan. And what that's been able to let us do is when we arrive on scene, it doesn't matter if you're a city, county, state, or federal agency, Channel 10, for example, is Channel 10 throughout. Instead of arriving on scene and trying to program your radio, it's already established. So everyone has a common knowledge of what that specific channel is. The aftermath of the Point Fire revealed the necessity for interagency cooperation, mutual aid agreements, operational plans in the wildland urban interface areas, training and qualification standards for rural fire departments, unified command structures, and common communication channels. All of these items can and should be reviewed on an annual basis in your local areas pre-planning efforts. Fortunately, many of the lessons learned from the Point Fire have not been lost. In the last 10 years, tremendous efforts have been made to bring together federal, state, and local cooperators and pre-plan for wildland fire incidents in wildland urban interface areas. Emergency response plans, cross-training, and common radio frequency communication plans continue to be established in all parts of the country. This last year, we talked to some folks in Wisconsin that have extensive knowledge and experience in pre-planning. In a previous module, we mentioned that they have mapped out their jurisdiction into zones to help alleviate some possible problems they might encounter on an interagency response. They've also worked out a system which enables them to mobilize a fully functioning interagency type 2 incident management team in under two hours. Let's listen as they explain their zone concept and how it works during incident management operations. The project class type players, the expectation or what we try to accomplish is to have a type 2 team up and running within two hours to help organize and manage the incident from a large magnitude of resources, both being LE, structural protection, and wildland protection resources, utilizing air resources as well. Rough season, obviously non-fire type season, winter time conditions. We are doing extensive amount of training within the local communities as well as exercising what we have as our incident management teams. We promote that aspect and the communication is critical, obviously, in any large organization, and we pre-plan the communication plan and the communications, how we're going to notify people and how is that going to all come together when the time is needed. When those conditions exist and we kind of give an all call type scenario that we may put it out on the local county dispatch offices that the conditions are right for a large scale fire that tunes up our local fire departments, our law enforcement officials that conditions will be right so if we do get a fire in the right place, right time, the expectation is that it's going to be an all agency type fire. I would explain the zone concept as we use it here in Wisconsin, because it's basically a pre-determined geographical area cluster of structures that has been pre-mapped, tallied on how many structures it's been named with a unique name convention. And the idea is that very similar to like a division concept, it's a geographical place on the ground, a group of structures that in the event of a forest fire we would expect that structural protection would be occurring in that zone. It's a way and a means to communicate and be able to organize our volunteer firefighters to be able to provide structural protection. Everybody has those maps from the wildland firefighting resources to the volunteer fire departments, our law enforcement services also have those maps. The maps were designed with the idea that they would be able to be used as an all risk type of tool. It's primarily a communication device, it's a pre-planned effort to be able to group structures because we have so many structures that in the first hour a person would be overwhelmed without having this pre-determined organizational tool. And with the idea of trying to keep communication as concise and clear as possible, we've designed the zones to meet that objective so that now all we need to do is say you need to go to this particular zone with its unique name, identify somebody that would be the supervisor of that zone and allocate resources to that supervisor. And through the process of training, we have a zone supervisor training package that we would have done beforehand for that individual that would have been named the zone supervisor. They would have the idea and understanding what their objectives and what their duties are to fulfill in that zone in a wildland fire environment. Additionally on the map, the structure maps we call them, our incident command posts are posted on there, water sites are posted on there and also the quality of site. If it's an A site means that they can pull right up to the water and fill two or three trucks at a time right off the road, whereas a C site would be something where you might have to put a portable pump in and maybe fill up one. So the fire departments play a big role in the overall fire program, but especially when we get to a larger fire where the urban interface is a big problem. To take a closer look at your own local areas efforts in pre-planning with cooperators, let's get into your groups and complete the next exercise in the student workbook.


Hello, welcome everybody. My name is Nicole Hasham and I'm the Environment and Energy Editor here at The Conversation. I'm speaking to you today from Ngunnawal Country, the land we know today is Canberra and I would like to pay my respects to elders past, present and emerging. So, welcome everybody to The Conversation's special set-the-agenda climate change discussion. So, during the selection campaign, The Conversation is really committed to focusing on the policies that affect our readers and the future of the planet. As a first step, we set our own citizens policy agenda in collaboration with our readers. So, we invited people to complete a poll called set the agenda. And this has made sure that we're asking experts the right questions, the questions that matter to you and provide the election coverage that keeps you informed on the issues that are close to your heart. So, we had a great response to the poll. 10,000 of you took the time to tell us what matters to you. And climate change emerged very strongly as the number-long concern for 62% of respondents. And the second biggest concern was the environment more generally. So, that's what's prompted this live discussion today with two of Australia's leading experts on climate science and climate policy, respectively. So, please allow me to introduce them. First, we have Merilee Abram, a professor of climate science at the Australian National University. Welcome, Merilee. Hello. Thank you for having me on the show today. And second is Wesley Morgan, a researcher at Griffith University's Griffith Asia Institute. Welcome, Wes. Hi. Thanks for having me. Thank you. So, I thought we'd start today with me, Merilee, just to give people an overview of what the latest science says on exactly where we're at with climate change. And then later on, we'll move on to Wes, who can help us understand a bit more about what needs to happen in the policy space in the next term of government to deal with this threat. But, Merilee, we've had some big reports lately from the international, maybe intergovernmental panel on climate change and others laying out the state of its climate and how we're going on our efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions. How would you summarize the situation as it is now? Yeah. So, I think the first really key point that comes out of these reports is that human-caused climate warming is not something to be debated anymore. It is an established scientific fact. There is no room for discussion about, is this real? The scientific evidence is overwhelming and has been for a very long time, but is now actually stated in that way in these reports that are endorsed by 195 governments across the world. So it's not just the scientists saying this, the government also accept this. So I think that's the first really important point where we're at at the moment is that the global temperature has warmed by about 1.1 degree since the pre-industrial times. How much of that is being caused by humans? 100%. So if we look just at the greenhouse gases that human activities have added to the atmosphere, that's caused around about 1.5 degrees of warming. There's a little bit of an offset because of other things that we've added to the atmosphere, including some sorts and aerosols that have a small cooling effect. But the overall effect is 1.1 degree of warming and that's increasing year on year now with some small variability around that. Okay, thanks, Nerly. Now, the impact of that warming is different around the world, depending on where you are. In Australia, we're obviously already very hot and dry continent. So how are we seeing climate that global warming playing out here? Yeah, so it's really important to recognise that in every inhabited part of the world, we're now seeing the impacts of climate change and that's playing out through weather and climate extremes in particular. So we see that in droughts becoming worse in some parts, in the southern parts of Australia, we've seen a rainfall decline in the winter and the spring that's projected to continue as global warming continues to worsen. As the climate gets warmer, then we have more heat waves. Heat waves are actually the deadliest natural disaster that we face that often isn't recognised. How damaging they can be to the point of being deadly. We see that at the moment in India, there's a terrible heat wave that's having a dreadful effect over there. In the Pacific Northwest of America, we saw a heat wave where temperature records were broken by more than five degrees. I mean, that's just an insane number. So we talk about one and a bit degrees of average warming, but the effects of that on the extreme events that we see is much larger. For that event, we saw cooling centres having to be set up so that people could survive that heat event. We also have those heat extremes in Australia, particularly concerning areas in the tropical areas where you have increasing temperature as well as combining with humidity, and that's a particularly deadly consequence. If we look at our major cities, if we let warming get to two degrees, then a temperature extreme of 50 degrees, I mean, the moment that sounds so extreme to be almost impossible, but that will be a rare event at two degrees. If we let warming get to three degrees, that will be a regular occurrence.  So obviously, you talked about drought and we saw the black summer bush fires. There was a clear climate link there, but we recently saw floods in Southeast Australia. A lot of people pointed to that as being climate change-related events. How clearly can we say that that was related to climate change? What are some of the complexities around that? Yeah, so the scientific sort of bar to actually be confident in an attribution is very, very high. And for rainfall, rainfall is very variable. We have fairly short records. And so actually seeing a rainfall extreme like that and being able to say with 100% certainty that that was a consequence of climate change or that was made more likely or worse because of climate change is something that's difficult with the observational records that we have. But from theory, we know that as the climate warms, the atmosphere can hold more energy. So it is expected that these rainfall extremes that can cause floods will become worse in the future. Climate models predict that. And it's actually one of the quirks of climate change is that you can have some areas like the southern parts of Australia, which we expect to overall be becoming drier because of climate change. But at the same time, when it does rain, that rain can come in very sort of heavy packages. And so that is really a huge challenge for adaptation if you're trying to adapt both to having less rainfall, but also when it falls, it can be in these really sort of devastating, large rainfall events. So there's a lot of complexity there, but it is a consequence of climate change that we expect to worsen into the future. Okay, thank you. Now, just sort of in the context of policy making, it's not always helpful to focus on worst case scenarios. You know, it can encourage some people to sort of tune out or feel very overwhelmed or paralysed. But it is important, I think that we acknowledge what might happen if we don't change course, if we stick on this business as usual path. Could you tell us what trajectory Earth is actually on at the moment? How about it might get and also where we need to be? Yeah. So it's a really, it's a really good point. And I think this all comes down to the fact that the future isn't actually set, it will depend on the choices that we make. And so it's really important that we have this scientific evidence and we base decisions on the scientific evidence about sort of what's the future that we actually want. So in sort of some of the worst case scenarios that scientists sort of model by the end of the century, we could be looking at five degrees of warming. So we're already seeing the impacts of one degree. If you make that five degrees of warming, those impacts will be a lot worse. We have global agreements through the Paris Agreement and then reiterated and strengthened through the Glasgow Pact last year, saying that we, as a, as a global people, we would, we want to make efforts to limit warming to well below two degrees, and to pursue the efforts to actually try and limit it to 1.5 degrees. So that's our ambition is to, we can see that there's a problem. How bad do we let it get we really don't want to get to two degrees. At the moment with the commitments that we have from governments around the world about reducing emissions, we're on track for about three degrees of warming. So we're not on track at the moment for meeting those commitments to limiting warming to where we've said that we really want to limit it to. So say we do meet the three degree warming threshold. In Australia, what's it going to look like? I mean, you mentioned 50 degree days in cities, for example, but they're obviously impacts are more broad. What's the different picture of what Australia might look like under one and a half degree warming as opposed to three degrees? Yeah. So, so a couple of examples, either the Great Barrier Reef is a really key one. It's one of these ecosystems that is already under high risk, just from the one on a bit degrees of warming so far. And what we're seeing as the oceans are becoming warmer is that the ocean temperatures are stressing the coral ecosystem and we see that manifest as bleaching and the death of corals. So that's something that's been happening more and more often. We've seen bleaching in 2016, 2017, 2020 again this year. Those are the type of events that previously we hadn't observed that before the 1980s. And then then we were having a decade between observing that. Now we're seeing this becoming a regular occurrence on the Great Barrier Reef. If we let warming get to 1.5 degrees, then the level, the temperature that the reef environment is living in will hit that same level as what in 2016 caused terrible bleaching and widespread death. We'll see that happening in two out of three years. And we will expect 90% of coral reefs around the world to have been bleached. If we let warming get to 2 degrees, we're talking about that sort of level of warmth in nine out of 10 years. And so you just don't give the reef any time to recover. At that level of warming, we're talking about we've pretty much lost coral reefs altogether, 99% of reefs have been lost under that scenario. So bushfires, a bushfire risk the number of days where we'll be seeing extreme fire danger weather, that will be increasing. So at about sort of 1.5 degrees of warming, we're talking about sort of a 50% increase in the number of days. If we let warming get to 3 degrees, we're talking about 100 to 300% increase in the number of days where we're at that sort of extreme fire danger risk. And there's a whole range of climate changes that play into those impacts and raising the risk of fire danger. So those are just a couple of examples. Another really important example is that actually really sort of frames the benefit as to why we want to sort of be on this lower pathway. I've already talked about Southern parts of Australia losing rainfall. Now if we go on a high emission scenario into the future, that's a trend that will continue throughout this century with Southern parts of Australia getting drier and drier to the point where we're talking about some of 20% decline in their in their rainfall over the winter and spring. But on the other side, the positive side, if we take that action to limit climate change, we do see continued decline in rainfall for the next couple of decades. But then we see that rainfall steadying and potentially even a bit of a recovery in rainfall. And so those are two very different scenarios for what that means for our southern states and for agriculture and for water resources. Yeah, so really sort of important to look at these different options for what change actually means in terms of impacts and the benefits of taking urgent climate action. So that's a good segue into one of our reader questions from Mark Hyde. Is there a tension between action now or is it too late? How can we handle the impacts now while action takes time to implement? Yeah, it's a really good question. I think that the point is that we don't sort of face a cliff where we just throw our hands up in the air and say it's all too late to do anything. We're on sort of this continuum where the worse we let climate change get, the greater the impacts are going to be and the harder it is to going to be to adapt to those and the more costly it's going to be to adapt to those. But there's always a worse case that we can still be avoiding as well. So while it's disheartening to see that even though we've had this evidence for the scientific problem in front of us for a long time, and that hasn't actually sort of had the meaningful action sort of springing from that yet to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, there's always sort of the optimistic side of what the future could look like compared to a worst case scenario that's worth taking action for. That's right. And would you say at the moment that the current level of policy ambition in Australia is commensurate with the threats that you've just outlined? And what do you see from a scientific perspective as driving the debate? And is it the science and the facts or is it something else? So at the at the moment that the policies that we see the policy that Australia currently has, what we see sort of being discussed from the major parties is is not aligned with the scientific evidence for what we need to do to meet those global commitments that we've made to limiting warming to well below two degrees. And there's a really sort of very simple sort of framing to how we can think about this. So what we know is that the scientific evidence tells us that every fraction of a degree of additional warming increases the risks and the impacts that we'll face. And every tonne of carbon dioxide that's emitted to the atmosphere increases warming. And so we have the target for where we want to sort of put that upper level of how bad do we let global warming get. And scientifically what that does is it gives us a carbon budget. The same as if we had sort of a budget for how much money we've got to spend in the month and we need to make sure that we stay inside that so we can live within our means. We can frame the climate discussion in exactly the same way. And so if we're if we're looking to to what we're hearing sort of the policy discussions beings, how we're seeing those set around this to be based on science, they really need to be based around that carbon budget and looking at how do we use our remaining carbon budget. And it's a fairly small remaining carbon budget that we have left. How do we use that in a wise way to enable us to make this transition to net zero. And I think if we hear things like Australia has a plan, we hear things like where Australia has committed to net zero by 2050. Neither of those things actually materially addresses the carbon budget and net zero by 2050 for Australia is too late. We will have already well and truly used all of our carbon budget before them. So we really need to see the scientific evidence starting to come into the framing how those policies are being set up. Thanks, narrowly. I've got a few more questions for you, but I might just go to Wes and come back to you a little bit later. So whereas narrowly has done a really good job of outlining the shortfalls in domestic climate policy, but we've also had a few issues in the news lately about our foreign climate policy in relation to the sick. We've had a big development there with China's security pact with the Solomon Islands, which Labor says is partly the result of Australia's failure to show leadership in the region on climate change. Do you agree with that? Oh, look, I do Australia's lack of leadership on climate has undoubtedly undermined Australian foreign policy in the region in the Pacific Islands. I lived in the Pacific for more than a decade and I taught international relations at the University of the South Pacific. And I followed this very closely. And the key issue is that there's a mismatch in conceptions of security between the Pacific and Australia. And, you know, for decades now Pacific Island countries have called on the international community to recognise climate change as a security threat and as an existential threat for some Pacific Island countries. Of course, you know, low lying at all states like Tuvalu and the Marshall Islands and Kira bus. They face particular threats. But the Pacific as a whole has for a long time been trying to tell Australia that they see climate change as their key security threat. Australia for its part has developed a renewed interest in the Pacific in the context of geo strategic competition between China and the US and China's growing presence in the region. And so Australia's become concerned about its own security in that context and is really worried about, you know, things like what we've seen happen in the Solomon Islands where China has established a security partnership. And did that happen because Australia hasn't been doing enough on climate change? You wouldn't say it's a direct cause. You wouldn't say that the Solomon Islands signed this agreement with China because Australia is not doing enough on climate change. But it is clear that, you know, that that it has eroded our standing as a security partner of choice in the region because we're not acting on what they see as their key security threat. And you know, the exact circumstances are unique to the Solomon Islands context and this current Solomon's government that they say they want to have a closer relationship with China in the hope that it would improve development prospects and more infrastructure financing in the Solomon's. And they argue that this security agreement is needed to help to protect Chinese built infrastructure. And don't get me wrong, it's a problematic security agreement. And a number of Pacific island countries have raised concerns about it as well. I've got a comment here from Susie McDougal that you might want to respond to. She says that we've already got some climate refugees here from the Pacific because they've lost too much of their home. Is that right? And can we expect more of that in future? Absolutely we can in future.  And so what do you do? Do you prepare to move your population to live abroad? How do you make that happen? Do you lose all rights to statehood? And these are conversations that are happening in Pacific Island countries to varying degrees. And for some, you know, some atolls in places like Kiribati, people, climate change is already a key driver for people to move abroad. And there's a lot of internal displacement, including in places like the Solomon Islands, where some atoll states, you know, community, sorry, some atoll islands, because in the Solomon's there are low lying islands as well. People have been forced to relocate within the country to higher islands. So it is a feature of life already in the Pacific. And what is Australia doing in the Pacific specifically in terms of climate leadership compared to what it needs to be doing? Well, you see, Australia has for decades supported climate adaptation projects in the Pacific, community based resilience building in the Pacific. Australia is the largest development partner for Pacific Island countries, and specifically for the Solomon Islands as well. You know, just last year, Australia funded a new project for a hydro electricity project to help the Solomon Islands to meet their Paris Agreement target, you know, to so the capital, Honiara, will be running on renewable energy from this hydro project. But the Pacific Pacific Island leaders, they look at this and they see Australia is the world's largest coal exporter or vies with Indonesia to be the world's largest coal exporter. Australia is not doing enough to reduce emissions at home. You know, Australia has the weakest target to cut emissions in the developed world. And Pacific countries are saying, look, you know, your assistance to the Pacific while it's welcome and while it's needed doesn't offset the fact that you're not doing enough to tackle what we think of as our key security threat. So Australia is a valued partner, but that's not what the Pacific wants to see. They want to see Australia taking real action to cut emissions and joining them to call on others to cut emissions. You know, the Pacific, they know that China, for example, is the world's largest emitter and they want to see China move away from coal-fired power and they want Australia to join them calling on China to do that, to reduce their emissions. That sort of flows into a question here from Rosalind. She says, science is understood by many, but the practical solutions are not. Could we have some focus on that so we can evaluate each political party's approach? So I might now just ask you about the respective pledges of the major parties going to this election. A lot of respondents to our set the agenda poll wanted to know about emissions reduction. We've got the coalition pledging cuts of up to 28% by 2030 based on 2005 levels, net zero emissions by 2050, although we've heard Matt Canavan and some of the other nationals saying this week that that target doesn't mean anything anymore. We've got Labour pledging 43% emissions reduction in that same timeframe, but we've also had Anthony Albanese saying Labour is prepared to support new fossil fuel projects if they stack up economically. So what's your assessment of these various policy approaches of the major parties? Well, to look at them separately, right, to think about the coalition, I mean, they are saying that they intend to cut emissions by 26% to 28% this decade. And that is the weakest target in the developed world. So that is behind our peers. But we can also look at the coalition's record. They've been in government for much of the last decade, and they've really failed to do anything to tackle emissions. What emissions reduction we have had in Australia has been driven by the actions of state governments by business and by households. So most of the emissions reductions over the last eight years has been in spite of the federal government, not because of the federal government. And, you know, the federal government, this government, when they first came to power under Tony Abbott, the first thing they did was abolish the Climate Commission, and then they abolished the carbon pricing scheme. And their approach to climate policy is a matter of record. They also have failed to protect Australians from all of these impacts that we're now seeing from climate change, you know, narrowly set out so eloquently the devastating consequences that we're facing now and will only, you know, increase, we'll face more often. And this kind of climate denialism from the federal government means that they haven't listened to the climate experts. They haven't listened to the emergency leaders when they've warned about things like major bushfire events, when they've warned about things like, you know, just the floods that we've had this summer. It's a La Nina summer, and the federal cabinet was warned that we had faced the prospect of flooding. And I think that this government hasn't done enough both to reduce emissions or to prepare communities to deal with the impacts of climate change. So that's thinking about what the coalition is offering. The Labor Party has a target of cutting emissions by 43% by the end of this decade. And that still below most of our peers are the developed countries. It's still below what the Internet Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change suggests a country like ours needs to be setting as a target if we are to achieve the Paris Agreement goals. It's behind what the Business Council of Australia wants. They want to see Australia set a target of cutting emissions by 50% this decade. But the Labor Party has talked about investing $20 billion in the Australian energy grid to transition faster to renewable energy as the main source of our electricity. And that, you know, the coal-fired power for electricity is our single largest source of emissions at the moment in Australia. So that's that's a crucial part of the solutions, you know, for us here. And the Labor Party has also said that they will provide incentives for households to reduce their emissions for things like incentives for buying electric vehicles, subsidies for batteries, for community batteries. So there are some differences in policy between the major parties on offer. But neither quite cut the mustard, it seems. Well, yes. And both major parties have, as you alluded to earlier, a stated commitment to Australia's fossil fuel exports. So the Labor Party, for example, has said that, you know, if new coal mines stack up environmentally, economically, then they will be approved. So there's this real reluctance, I think, by either major party to get ahead of what they see as a market-driven transition, you know, they're not prepared to really show policy leadership in driving Australia towards more ambitious commitments. And obviously, the, you know, the culture wars that have shaped climate policy over the last 10, 15 years. Both major parties, I think, are very wary of that. But I do think that we're entering a new era. You know, the changes in the global, over the last two years, more than 100 countries representing 80% of the global economy have committed to achieving net zero emissions. And that changes the landscape. That changes Australia's economic interests immensely, you know. I'll get to that in a minute. We've got an interesting question here from Lois Wishart, which either of you are welcome to answer. Aside from voting for action to reduce carbon emissions, what can citizens do to help convince governments and fellow citizens that this issue is existential and needs urgent mitigation, are extinction rebellions disruptive activities helpful? Or just putting people offside and how do we counter entrenched vested interests, whether from the media or the business? A lot in there. There is a lot there. Narrowly, do you do you want to have a first stab at a response to that question? Yeah, I can have a first stab. So I would say that absolutely voting is really important. I think that we're really covered nicely. The position of what we see from the major parties, I would say that there's some really interesting options available from the independence. And that might be what we need in terms of setting up a government that will actually have some teeth in terms of tackling the climate change problem and emission reductions in a way that is aligned with what the scientific evidence says that we need. So voting is critically important. But as well as that, I think it is really important that people make their voices heard and by being vocal we know that governments will actually respond to what they're hearing from people. There's also what they see from industry and business as well. But we do need to actually be vocal and there's various different ways of doing that. And so I think it's finding the way that you can actually sort of express what's important to you. We've already seen through the survey that the conversation has done, the climate issue is the top issue for people in this sort of area. And so it's making sure that that comes through. And if it's something that the people want and if it's something where we're really sort of seeing the impacts that this is having on communities and on individuals and the economic costs of that, the personal costs of that, so that we can actually sort of have that discussion of not only what does it cost to make these transitions and reduce emissions, but what do we actually save in terms of the avoided costs of the damage that comes from climate change as well. Thanks, Naralee. Wes, did you want to jump in? You know, an aspect of the question there was about the role of vested interest and that is important. You know, I think for much of the last 30 years since climate change has been, you know, there's been a real international consensus on climate change and global efforts to tackle climate change. Australia has for too long seen its national interest linked with fossil fuel exports and this has been something that's been an approach of both major parties and that calculus no longer holds, I think. You know, increasingly I think we'll see a different set of vested interests that begin to drive Australian approach to climate change as we see the opportunities that are available for Australia as a clean energy exporter in a world that is transitioning towards net zero emissions and as we see our trading partners committing to net zero, they're going to want less of Australian coal and gas and so that vested interest, if you like, that has shaped our climate debate for so long will have less and less of a hold on our conception of what Australia's interests really are on climate change. Yeah, that leads me to a question I did have about the implications for Australia economically and diplomatically if we don't change course. You've talked about the projected fall in demand for our fossil fuel exports. What are the other disadvantages that we're going to run up against if we don't get in the game? Well, one thing to think about that I don't think is talked about enough is the consequences for Australian foreign policy, for Australian strategy. We talked about the implications in the Pacific, but our key allies and friends on the global stage want to see action from Australia. They want to see at COP26 in Glasgow last year, the United States set a new 2030 target, the UK set a new 2030 target, the European Union set a new 2030 target, Japan did, Korea did, New Zealand did, Canada did, Australia did. If we continue to refuse to take action and join that consensus, we'll be isolated on the international stage. We already are, I think.  It's no coincidence that we're going to see an international exporter after Russia and Saudi Arabia. The U.S. is our, for example, is our key security ally and the U.S. are very explicit that they just recently published a new Indo-Pacific strategy and they want to see countries in the region like Australia doing more. It says explicitly they want to see a new target. If we don't, there will be costs for us diplomatically as well as the costs that I think a lot of people have talked about in terms of economic costs. I could draw that out a little if you want but there are the European Union, for example is considering carbon border tariffs on exports from countries that are not doing enough to reduce emissions and that will have significant impacts for Australian exports and for Australian jobs and other countries are looking at joining the European Union in doing so. Just this year, the G7 which is a group of leading advanced democracies, they're contemplating a new carbon club, a group of countries that will set minimum joint standards on climate action and they will impose costs on others who are not meeting those joint standards. That's the way we're going to see the international environment move as the imperative is clear that we need to be cutting emissions globally this decade so the costs diplomatically and in terms of Australia's economics, the costs to us will only grow. Thanks, Wiz. Natalie, I might ask you to respond to this question from Matt Ellison. Should we be seeing obvious planning for development of new communities, say from floods and fires? He's made reference to LISMO, obviously they are considering the need for relocations, sea level rise for low line coastal communities. I suppose in terms of your expertise the question is how much climate change is already locked in and how to what extent do we need to accept that we need to adapt no matter how quickly we reduce emissions from this point. Yeah, so it's a great question and it's certainly a question that's already actually facing people. We see places like LISMO where the flood peaks two metres above the previous record. Again, that's really dramatic sort of breaking of records which put people in danger who hadn't been in danger in the past from these natural disasters that are being fuelled by climate change. So the answer is yes, we absolutely need to be planning for these. We know that we're already seeing the impacts of climate change. Under any future scenario we will hit 1.5 degrees and go past 1.5 degrees in a very optimistic scenario we can then start to, we can recover from that and come back to 1.5 degrees but we are going to hit 1.5 degrees. So that's the absolute minimum that we should be planning for in terms of the future impacts that we need to make sure that our communities are protected from and I think that there's a really important role here for governments to be assisting in that and if they don't then we're going to see it happen anyway in terms of the insurance companies are going to be acting on this and they already are acting on this. They understand what the risks are and how those risks are worsening and so we see economically that it's going to play out through those sorts of avenues and then I think there's also a really important aspect here in terms of what's sort of locked in for the future and for some of these climate change impacts once we can stabilize climate change then those impacts will also stabilize and we start to get to a new situation that we can develop our society around to be safe around this new climate that we settle in but there are some elements of climate change where there are long-term changes locked in and sea level rise is sort of a particularly key example of that where even if we limit warming to 1.5 degrees we can see the oceans continue to rise for centuries to millennia to come so the key difference there is depending on which pathway we are a high emission or a low emission pathway for the future that will determine how quickly sea level rises and ultimately how many metres of sea level rise we're going to face the difference there is how much time we have to adapt to that and a low emission pathway buys us more time and sets us at a lower number of metres, two to three metres over many centuries that we would have to be adapting to in that situation in a high emission scenario it could be two metres in the next one to two centuries so there's definitely work that we have to do to make sure that our communities are safe from those changes that we can predict we also need to be aware that there are changes that could be in the pipeline that we're not completely aware of yet so where there's these tipping points where there can be rapid changes but we do need to have an eye on that and we need to recognise that we are already facing the impacts of climate change and we need to make sure that we're setting people up for a future where they're safe from those impacts. Absolutely, thanks Nerly. We're just about out of time, we've got a lovely talk about the next government and I might just put it to both of you for a quick response just to finish out. What top three changes to current policy can have the most significant and rapid effect on reducing emissions so you could tell the next government elected on May 21 what their top three priorities need to be what would you list? The first thing is that Australia needs to set a much stronger target, this is expected from the international community and we committed to it under the Paris agreement that we would strengthen our 2030 target so we need to do that before COP 27 later this year. I also think the next government needs to talk about climate action as a strategic and economic opportunity for Australia. We can't afford another decade of dragging the chain on global action, we need to get real that climate change is happening and the rest of the world is moving towards a net zero emissions global economy and Australia has, is very well placed to seize the economic opportunities that are present in a net zero emissions global economy so the next government whoever it is needs to be promoting Australia as a clean energy supplier to the region, you know countries in our region we are the sunniest, windiest inhabited continent on earth we have a global advantage in the production of renewable energy and clean energy commodities things like hydrogen green metals and we really need to be the next government whoever it is needs to be promoting Australia as a renewable superpower and so the third thing is that you know the next government will need to do more to help Australian communities prepare for the impacts of climate change so you know we I think we need to have a national risk assessment that really helps to identify what are the key risks and government needs to take seriously the federal government needs to take seriously its responsibility for helping communities to prepare for what we know is coming in terms of these increasing impacts for Australian communities. Thanks Wes, what about you Narely? Yeah so yeah great answers Wes, so I would say yeah firstly we need to see Australia setting targets that are based on science in terms of the carbon budget that's remaining and Australia's fair share of carbon budget that is remaining what we should be demanding of our political parties in setting those policies if we want to limit warming to two degrees we need to be talking about 50% reduction in emissions by 2030 and net zero by 2045 if we want to limit warming to 1.5 where it would be even safer to try and try and stop this train then we're talking about a 74% reduction by 2030 and net zero by 2035 so they're the targets that are actually based in scientific evidence so that's what we need to see those are very rapid transitions so we need to be employing as quickly as possible the technologies that already exist to make that transition the majority of our emissions are from the burning of fossil fuels and most of that is through energy generation so we need to be basically electrifying everything and supporting that electrification using renewable energy and then that will bias the time and save us the remaining bit of the budget to be able to make the more difficult transitions that are coming up and to make those transitions we actually don't have the technology at hand yet to be able to deploy it at the scale that we need so we also need to see an investment in the science that's going to actually develop the basis for being able to come up with those solutions that we don't yet have to finish the job of stabilizing our climate thank you it sounds like very good advice to me so that's all we've got time for today unfortunately I'm sorry to all our viewers whose questions we didn't get to but we will be trying to respond to reader questions throughout the campaign so keep your eye on the election coverage as we report the findings from the set the agenda poll and bring you all the information about the issues that matter to you most and thank you so much Wes and Narely for today and for everything you do to try and inject some really valuable information into the public debate and if you want to see more of Wes and Narely or hear more from them you can check out their recent articles in the conversation I understand the link will be added to the chat right now on that so thanks everyone for joining us and goodbye thank you thanks so much


Hello everyone, myself Mr. R. F. R. Sayal. I work as an assistant professor in the department of computer science and engineering at Halchin Institute of Technology. So, the topic for my today's lecture is flow shop scheduling problem. Now, at the end of the session the students will be able to solve the flow shop scheduling problem. Now, as we know the processing of job requires several distinct tasks to be completed. Now, taking an example of computer programs. Now, computer programs generally run in a multi-programming environment and these are given as input to the machine which are first executed and after the execution the jobs are queued for output and then their output is printed. Now, for flow shop scheduling there are n number of jobs where every job consists of m number of tasks that is for a job i we have tasks t 1 i t 2 i t 3 i up to t m i where i ranges from 1 to n and the task t j i is to be performed on processor p j or is to be executed on processor p j where j lies between 1 to m. Now, the time required to complete the task t j i is small t j i. So, we are expected to schedule these n jobs and the scheduling is nothing but assignment of the tasks to the time intervals on the processors and the basic condition is on a processor no more than one task could be executed at the same time. Now, processing of a task t j i where j is greater than 1 cannot be started until task t j minus 1 i is completed that is for a particular job if we have 2 tasks the previous task should be completed first and then the next task can be executed. Now, n jobs each requiring m tasks are to be scheduled on the m processors. So, this is what is our flow shop scheduling problem. Now, the schedule that could be generated are first one is a non preemptive schedule and the second one is a preemptive schedule. Let us see what these schedules are a non preemptive schedule is nothing but where the tasks are processed on any processor and those tasks are not terminated until the task is complete. So, that means, once the task is started on a processor it will be completed at any cost without any other task interrupting it, but whereas a case for preemptive scheduling the processing of a task on the processor may be terminated sometimes and another task may be assigned to the processor. So, this is the difference between non preemptive and preemptive schedule. Now, the finished time f i of s of a job i is the time at which all the tasks of the job i have been completed in the schedule s. Now, similarly the finished time f of s that is capital F of s of the schedule s is given as f of s is equal to maximum of small f i of s where i ranges from 1 to n meaning the finished time of the schedule is calculated as by considering all the finished times of the jobs in that schedule and out of those which job has a maximum finish time that maximum finish time is the finish time of the schedule. Similarly, we have another term mean flow time of the schedule s which is given as 1 by n into summation of all f i of s where i ranges from 1 to n this is nothing but the average of the finished time of all jobs. Similarly, we have some other terminologies and optimal finish time OFT schedule for a given set of jobs is a non preemptive schedule for which f of s is minimum over all non preemptive schedule s. Similarly, as we had an optimal finish time as in the case of non preemptive a preemptive optimal finish time schedule for a given set of jobs is a preemptive schedule s for which f of s is minimum over all preemptive schedules s. So, these are nothing but the optimal finish times for the preemptive and the non preemptive case. We have an example where two jobs have to be scheduled on three processors and we are expected to find the schedule of the non preemptive case that is a non preemptive schedule we are expected to find out and the following matrix gives the task times this is nothing but we have two jobs it is these one column indicates the task times of the individual task for a job that is this first column indicates that the first task will take two units time second task three unit time third task final times of job one. Similarly, this is for second job now these we have to schedule on three processors these tasks have to be scheduled on the three processors. Now, since the first task of the first job requires two time units it has to be processed on processor P1 since it is the task one. So, it will be processed on processor P1 from time unit 0 to 2. Now, at the same time we know that for second job there is no time requirement on processor P1. So, hence we can say directly the task 2 of job 2 can be started. So, it will be started from this point at time instant 0 and it requires three time units. So, therefore, it will be scheduled on processor P2. In the meanwhile after finishing this the second task of job 1 that is T21 is scheduled on processor P2 and then the third task of job 2 is scheduled on processor P3 and finally, the third task of job 1 is scheduled on processor P3. So, this is the non-preemptive schedule S for the given set of jobs. Now, here the finish time of job 1 is calculated as the point at which job 1 got completed that is time instance 11. So, hence we have the answer as f 1 of s equal to 11. Now, pause the video and answer this question calculate the finish time of job 2 in the example. Now, the answer is when you see job 2 we have two tasks that is T22 and T32. So, the last task that we need to say is at what time does it get completed? So, it gets completed at time instance 5. So, therefore, f 2 of s is equal to 5 that is second job gets completed at time instance 5. The finish time f s of the non-preemptive schedule s is given as f s equal to max of f i of s where i goes from 1 to n that is max of f 1 of s comma f 2 of s this is equal to max of 11 comma 5 which is equal to 11. So, this is the finish time of the non-preemptive schedule s. Similarly, now that matrix that we had which gives that task times for the two jobs which have to be scheduled on three processors we are expected now to find out the preemptive schedule for it. So, we start with the first task of job 1 which will be processed on processor p 1 and the task 2 of job 2 is processed on processor 2 for two time units. Now, task t 2 1 is arising the task t 2 1 is scheduled on processor p 2 for three time units. Now, remember one thing t 2 2 has time units 3, but we are interrupting it or preempting it after two time units. So, that means, one time unit of execution is still pending. So, that will be done later as shown in the diagram. So, here we can see the task t 2 2 is preempted and priority is given to task t 2 1 that is task 2 of job 1 and it is executed on processor p 2. After that the remaining task that is t 3 1 is executed on processor p 3 and finally, the task t 3 2 is executed after execution of t 3 1. So, here the priority is given to the task of job 1. So, here also we can see job 1 ends at time instance 10 that is t 3 1 ends at time instance 10 and t 3 2 that is job 2 ends at time instance 12. So, the finish time of job 1 is f 1 of s equal to 10 and finish time of job 2 is f 2 of s equal to 12. The finish time that is capital FS of non-preemptive schedule s is equal to max of f i of s where i goes from 1 to n that is max of f 1 of s comma f 2 of s which is equal to max of 10 comma 12 which is equal to 12. And finally, we see an application of this flow shop scheduling an application is where we are having n machines and m jobs are to be processed on it and we know that each job requires n operations to be executed and ith operation will be executed on the machine i. And another condition is no machine can perform more than one operation simultaneously as well as the operation within one job must be performed in a predefined order or in a specified order. The main aim is to determine the optimal schedule and optimal schedule is one which takes minimum amount of time. This is the reference. Thank you.


When people come to tour Boston, they get out to the finish line and take pictures of the finish line. This is going to give them an opportunity to understand what marathons are about. And if they know somebody might have run in past marathons, they'll be able to actually find out when they ran, what their time was. It's all going to be interactive.