What are the deep evolutionary (neurobiological) and cultural drivers perpetuating poor decision-making in relation to the environment and sustainability and how can we use these insights to identify leverage points for supporting meaningful, lasting individual and collective change toward ecocultural sustainability?

This question is transdisciplinary and requires collaborative exploration into evolution, human origins, our relationship to primates (and other culture-creating species), evolution of culture, neurobiology, organizational learning, evolutionary psychology, ethics and morality, game theory, decision theory, systems dynamics, social learning for sustainability, as well as many other fields.

It gets at the heart of the matter that while information is a necessary condition for meaningful change, it is by no means a sufficient condition for meaningful change.

How can we get all scientists and engineers to serve their “whistles-blowing” role when necessary to protect public health, saftey, or welfare or otherwise uphold and defend the values and codes of ethics of their professions? What are the reasons and factors at play when they fail to serve this role?

When scientists and engineers put personal or professional advantage before professional duty, their professions and the public welfare they exist to serve lose.

This is more the rule than the exception when they have to choose between “blowing whistles,” particularly on institutional wrongdoing, and “looking other way.”

Why is this and can it be changed? If society does not trust engineers and scientists to do their duty, ethically and competently, then the results of whatever research is conducted will not have the credibility required to cause significant societal change, if that is what the research indicates is necessary.

What are the most effective ways for people to develop an understanding of the causes, respond and adapt to global change?

The question is important because it gets past mere causes and focuses on the moral issue that underpins global change; what is the best means for people to adapt to it in the long run? I suspect that the main obstacle to understanding and responding to global change has to do with human institutions or rules.

How the scientific community is going to cope with interactions between economic growth, population development and ecology which at present perpetuate vicious circle? Do we need a new scientific speciality, complexology, to deal with the challenge?

Meeting the challange we have to cope with complexity our predominantly disciplinary science is poor prepared for. We need a new scientific subject complexology which has to combine systems approaches with the ability to address required disciplines and to communicate with the scientific community. That does not exist, yet.

Given the predominant theme:”to take action against global environmental change”, and the fact that environmental change is an ongoing process with long term consequences, what is being done in terms of research to find solutions leading to adaptation as well as mitigation of the effects on the earth and humanity to these changes?

Negative environmental change is widely perceived and agreed upon by most scientific and policy formulation circles. Too much effort is going into how to stop it, rather than how to adapt to it, for it is now inevitable and beyond the immediate control of humanity, therefore adaptation must take precedence over, or at the very least run parallel to mitigation, in order to ensure long term solutions for the earth and humanity.

Do we have a policy for ensuring good sharing of future advances in computer modelling of complex systems – across all different areas including outside the climate change community?

There has been an explosion in data processing since the computer – is someone keeping track of it all, so any advances made in – for example financial modelling of an economy – are known by climate researchers ASAP

How do we meet the human wellbeing requirements (e.g. food and nutritional security, health, livelihoods) of current and future human populations without increasing pressure on already vulnerable ecosystems?

Increasing evidence suggests that demands on food production are likely to reach a peak mid-century. At the same time, our ability to produce and transport sufficient food is predicted to be reduced by climate change (temperature and water dynamics), carbon costs (chemicals, transport), and the loss of land to energy production.

There will therefore be increasing pressure on:
• natural resources (land and associated water and soil, biodiversity), leading to trade-offs for ecosystem service provisioning (with impacts on livelihoods, ecosystem and human health, security) and other land uses (agriculture, biofuels, urban planning, conservation, recreation)
• agricultural practice leading for the need for new and innovative techniques and technologies, and the concomitant risks for environmental and human health

To stand a chance of tackling these inter-related issues, mechanisms and funding for regional and global projects that move beyond assessment are required. Projects should be interdisciplinary and participatory incorporating researchers, practitioners and the people whose wellbeing is under investigation. Such work should not only allow conceptual and theoretical development in the fields of environmental and sustainability science but must also have impact on the ground, creating opportunities for improved human wellbeing and increased resilience not just for now, but into the future also.

How does consciousness affect our planet on the micro- and macro level and what are the unique possibilities of human beings to bring about transformation in consciousness?

It is important to go to the deepest levels of analysis to treat symptoms that we face on the surface. When science makes in-depth analyses, it sees that all is energy and all is connected. It is high time to lift the seeming contradiction between science and spirituality, which did not exist for millenia in the East, and seriously start working on the deepest levels.

How can we make use of global warming to generate energy in the future?

As reported some where by the year 2030 if carbon dioxide reaches twice is pre-industrial level, global temperature would be 1.5 degree to 5 degrees C higher than that of today. This means more solar heat available on the earth. Is it possible to use this potential radiated heat from CO2,O3,CH4 and CFC,s etc.and increased solar heat to generate solar power stations all over the world in the next couple of decades?

How to generate energy from the temperature gap of sea bottom and sea surface?

The whole edifice of moden civilization is based on energy for which there is no substitute. Energy demand increasing not only because of population growth but also the need to attain higher standard of living. All existing energy sources are not sufficient in future. Even nuclear energy has its own limitations and expensive. In this situation is there any way to produce energy from sea bottom? Temperature difference or gap between sea surface and sea bottom can be harnessed to creat a unlimited supply of energy. As 71% area of earth covered with sea and ocean and only 21% of land. Then a very large amount of energy may be produced from sea bottom in future.