Environment-Bolzano Media Works Set

8/6/2019 Environment-Bolzano Media Works Set

1/11

A Question of Responsibility

Maciej Mikulewicz

Marc Zebisch is tired of convincing sceptics that climatic change is a fact. The head of EURACsInstitute for Applied Remote Sensing says the time to act is now. We interviewed him to find out his

thoughts on the politics and prospects of planetary survival.

The anthropological climate change is a global issue and a global responsibility. Can we, and

will we share our European technological achievements with the poorer parts of the planet?

Zebisch: For sure, Europe is very interested in exporting climate-friendly technology. Inparticular, renewable energy technology is a big global market, with competition between Europe,China and the US. The question is more, can the poorer areas of the world afford to buy Europeantechnology. But first, there are a lot of low tech achievementsfor example, solar water heating

for poorer countries that might be more appropriate for regional application. Renewable energies,mainly solar, could also become a market for them.

Would sharing our knowledge be enough to help the poorest countries?Definitely not. First, we have to understand that at the moment the average European citizen emits2-3 times more GHG (greenhouse gases) than the average Chinese citizen and 5-10 times more thanthe average Indian citizen. Hence the ball is clearly in the court of the rich countries. Second, poorregions are very often the production site of consumer goods for the rich countries. So it is clearlyour responsibility to support such places by introducing clean technology, which should be financedthrough higher product prices. Furthermore, the Kyoto Protocol has already foreseen the so-calledClean Development Mechanism, which allows industrialized countries to invest in GHG-reducingtechnologies in developing countries to compensate for emissions produced in the industrializedworld.

What did you find the most important in the last Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change

(IPCC) report, and why?

For me, the most important statement is this: "Most of the observed increase in global averagetemperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenicGHG concentrations." This is an advance since the 2001 reports conclusion: "Most of the observedwarming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in GHG concentrations".This helps a lot when arguing with stakeholders who can very often be skeptical about theimportance of human influence. Only when we manage to convince them can we start talking aboutclimatic change mitigation and adaption measures. The big achievement of the IPCC is thecollection and summary of all the work which has been done in different parts of the world through

different scientific disciplines.Are we really going to face more disasters due to the climate change, or will we just know

more about them, and by knowing more, be more afraid?

The question is, whats a disaster? What we know very well is that we should expect, and beprepared for, climatic change. That means changes over the long-term in average temperatures andlevels of precipitation. We know already this will have severe consequences for regions like theAlps. For instance, less water in the summertime from melting snow means higher risk of droughtsin summer for agriculture. If we consider this a disaster, the question becomes more how well wewill prepare ourselves? What we dont know so well is to what extent natural hazards such asfloods, landslides or rock falls will increase. Several studies indicate we will see an increase due to

an expected increase of extreme precipitation eventscausing floods and landslidesand themelting of permafrostcausing rockfalls. But here, the scenarios are not robust enough to givereliable quantitative information.


2/11

Should we focus on creating systems preventing us from the bad effects of climate change, or

we rather should construct warning systems?

The first strategy should always be to avoid or respectively mitigate climatic change by reducinggreenhouse gases emissions. There is a big potential and demand for that, particularly in theindustrialized world. Calculation in the framework of the Copenhagen climate conference showedthat industrialized nations should reduce their emissions by up to 80% until 2050 to reduce the

warming to the 2C level. The second strategy is adaptation to the unavoidable. This includes earlywarning systems, for instance, for floods, droughts, etc., as well as system that could prevent usfrom suffering bad effects, for example, higher dikes, more retention areas for floods, and moreeffective water management systems including water storage for droughts. The answer is not eitheror. The challenge is to investigate intelligent and cost-effective measures which ideally contributeto mitigation and adaptation.

Which issue related to the anthropological climate change should be in your opinion discussed

and researched more, and which one should we stop talking about?

We should definitely stop discussion, if there is something like climatic change or not. There ismore than enough evidence of an accelerating warming and many consequences of this are already

being observed. Instead, we should discuss more about how we can reduce greenhouse gasemissions globally as fast as possible. Considering this, Copenhagen was a real throwback. Fromthe perspective of science there is still a lot to improve in the regional to local scale. Here, climaticscenarios are less accurate and, particularly for precipitation, it sometimes shows contradictingresults. But the most important thing at the moment is not to talk but to act.

Stze zum Hervorheben:The question is more, can the poorer areas of the world afford to buy European technology.

"Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is verylikely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations."

We should definitely stop discussion, if there is something like climatic change or not.

BioMaciej Mikulewicz is a student of Polish Philology at the Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan.He writes for the 'Glos Wielkopolski, Polska The Times' and on 'Krytyka Polityczna' web page.

Box on Marc ZebischMarc Zebisch, Scientific Director of the Institute for Applied Remote Sensing, is specialized inmonitoring and modeling land-use dynamics and the consequences of global change by means of

remote sensing, GIS and computer models. He graduated at the Potsdam University and obtainedhis PhD at the Technical University of Berlin. He contributed as co-author to the EEA-report'Impacts of Europe's changing climate' and as a leading author to the report 'Climate Change inGermany Vulnerability and Adaptation of Climate sensitive Systems'.


3/11

Looking for a blast of fresh air

Ester Perez

Eurac Institute for Applied Remote Sensing swims into the data and analyzes air pollutants of theBolzano province to develop better measurement methods and find the best decisions to aloud us a

quality breathe.

Have you ever doubt that what your thermometer indicates when you feel ill is not exact? Themeasurement has an error margin of 0.5 degree and thats the noise that researches of the Institutefor Applied Remote Sensing have to face every day at the Eurac. The data are not clean, often erroris bigger than signal, but we can measure the change of the noise says atmospheric researcherMarcello Petitta.

His everyday work is to analyze air pollutants in Bolzano like particulate matter (PM), the smallballs of solid or liquid aerosol that both natural and anthropogenic factors can cause. Dust storms,forest fires, sea spray are the natural ones, but fossil fuels burning, industrial activities and transport

vehicles have been increasing PM measurements in the last 50 years.

The consequences in human health are directly related to pulmonary and cardiovascular diseases.PM enter the respiratory tract and provoke asthma, bronchitis and chronic obstructive pulmonarydisease (COPD). With their tiny diameter, 40 smaller than a hair, they can even reach the alveoliand interrupt the O2 flow in the blood.

The smaller their diameter is, the most dangerous they can be for environment and humans andthese are the ones that human activity generates the more. One of the clearest examples is theLondon smog in 1952. The low temperatures made people burn more coal for heating whichtogether with vehicle pollution and heavy winds from industrial areas increased PM and sulphurdioxide in the smoke. The number of deaths reached to more than 4000 that winter. Also climategets affected by these aerosols by changing his optical properties, lifetime and earth albedo, whichis the surface reflectivity of sun's radiation.

However, these small balls of chemical elements are also useful for the environment in the correctvalues. Natural PM help vapour water to aggregate and create clouds, as well as blocking sun raysto cool earth.

So, when Petitta sits in front of his computer and gets the data from the Terra and Aqua satellitesand from thirteen province stations he can make maps of different possibilities that help to take

strategic decisions in politics. Unfortunately, there is no clear answer when it comes to climatechange, the researcher admits.

The goal of the project is to develop methods for the monitoring of the concentration and the spatialdistribution of fine particulates using the MODIS sensor installed on the satellites. This sensormeasures the PM thanks to their capacity to reflect blue radiation of the spectrometer camera andthen it sends new data of a determined point twice a day. Moreover, the province stations providelocal information at the ground level.

What makes Petittas work hard is that all this information is not a succession of neat numbers thatalways give scientists the right response. Scientific community still not understand why winds

blow from east to west and from west to east, so the scientific problem of climate change is notunderstood yet. Making models and equations for future forecasts is what is going on right nowbecause of the democratic approach to climate change but Pettita warns about the importance of


4/11

not stopping to study climate itself.

Also scientific director of the Remote Sensing Institute, Marc Zebisch, makes the differencebetween forecasts and scenarios which are the result of the study of different models. In fact, hereminds, you should never trust on just one map.

However, data and its variations have significant points that can not be avoid when it comes toprevention and Europe has yet established the limit of 15 microgrammes of PM on air microcube.Keep on monitoring to understand particles properties and international collaboration betweenscientist and policy makers is the long way that will reach to the best decisions.


5/11

Interview to Marc Zebisch

Elena Ledda

Since May 2005 the geo ecologist Marc Zebisch is the scientific head of EURACs Institute forApplied Remote Sensing, a team of 27 people working on the current most pressing environmental

problems within both the global and the local and regional context. Academia (Focus) addresseshim to find out more about his daily job and the most controversial and unspoken issues related toclimate change.

-Whats your job in your daily life?

- I spend almost 50 percent of my time answering emails, another 30 in participating in projectsmeetings and the other 20 is when I really work on climate change looking up scenarios, tools forclimate modelling or reading scientific papers.

-What are the main pressures that you feel while doing your job?

- The majority of our employees are paid through EU projects, which normally last between twoand three years, so we constantly need to acquire new projects in order to be able to keep our staff.This has nothing to do with research but its a necessary and a non-ending competition, often veryhard to win. Another pressure, very typical for such a regional institute, is that we get money fromthe province and, of course, we have to legitimize to the tax payers -who want to know how they

profit from our research- what we do with it. So if were doing climate change research in the Alps

and a farmer asks me how he profits from all the money we get its kind of critical to give ananswer that might be satisfying for him.


6/11

-So what do you tell the farmer?

- That even if he doesnt see it he has a direct use from what we do once the province utilises ourdatas on climate change research to understand upcoming problems of water availability, forinstance. I also tell him that theres a second use, which is the importance for a region to educate the

people (which we also do going to the schools and receiving them here) and invest in research. Still,many people cant accept this sort of investment, even if only in this institute we have 10 local

workers.

-But 10 out of 27 is still a minority, isnt it?

-Yes, but the reason is that in South Tyrol there arent many people who studied the things we mightbe interested in.

-Which is the main project on climate change youre working on right now?

- We are using nine existing climate regional scenarios within the Alps to understand the impacts ofclimate change on a regional scale (meaning a territory of around 50 km) and to find out whichactions should be taken within the Spatial Planning authorities, which co-operate with us. Forexample if from climate scenarios we see that the risk of natural hazards, like of floods, is

increasing, they should change their landscape plans of future house buildings. Then they informthe local authorities, but once we cant give exact numbers most of the times theres no real actiontaking place and the lets wait and see what happens mentality prevails.

-How would you explain the disagreement among scientists on climate change? Is it based on

lack of knowledge or on political and economic interests?

- From my own believe I would say that over one thousand scientists who agree on the climatechange theories there is only one who disagrees.

- Really?

-Yes, I cant prove it but its what I believe. But then when you look at the media it seems theproportion is much less because the voice of the climate sceptics is much bigger than their realnumbers. Of course there are some unknown issues on climate change.

-For example?

- The contribution of liquid aerosol. Theoretically it has a cooling effect but no one knows exactlyhow big it is nor how much aerosol theres in the atmosphere. This is scientific unknown and wecan discuss on this but if you look at the climate sceptics I would say that at least the most

prominent sceptics, like Peter Singer, are paid by oil companies. This can be proved by the fact that,even if some datas (such as the very famous one on sun activity) have been proven to be wrong,they still use them to demonstrate that the sun has a bigger effect on climate change than human

activity.-What is the role of governments?

- I would say its more industrial driven than governments. At the top level the common sense isprevailing and even China is somehow fighting climate change.

- We know that worldwide agriculture is responsible of around the 17 percent of greenhouse

effect gases emissions. What could be done to limit them?

- Theres a very simple solution for all the emissions, which would be to have a CO2 tax (or theequivalent methane in the case of meat). So if you calculate for everything you produce how muchgreenhouse gas is emitted, included transport and everything, you just pay the equivalent CO2 tax

on it.

-So if we tax the emissions produced on it we can eat as much meat as we want?


7/11

-Of course the market should also regulate it. If the CO2 tax was endless and one kilo of meatwould cost one hundred euros, then people would automatically eat less meat.

- Does the way the meat is produced affect the climate change?

- Not really. Even if we only had happy cows living free the problem would still be the CO2 sink(the one stored in the grass). When eating the grass the animal transforms it into methane (which

has a16 times higher effect than CO2). You would have to eat pigs or any other animal that doesnteat grass or doesnt digest it. Its not only a meat issue because rice fields have the samefermentation problem than cows.On a global level another big issue is deforestation for agriculture and the CO2 produced by the

burnt trees.

-So who should regulate the CO2 emission tax?

-The WTO.

- What is the European Union doing to limit the greenhouse gases emissions?

- Its investing a lot of money in house isolation (which is working very well on a national and

regional level) and its now implementing CO2 emissions regulation on cars. And it promoted thetrading scheme certificates, which have been working for five years already.

-What is the danger of this kind of trade?

- The fact that people get more certificates than they really need and then the price goes down. Ithink that the banks should reduce the amount of certificates on the market. Until now they have

been too cheap.

- Do you consider the EU is doing enough?

- No.

-Why isnt it doing enough if it spends a lot of money in research such as your institute?

- The problem is mainly lobbing, but the good thing about climate change is that every reduction infuel usage also helps economically. If you have a factory and you introduce environmental friendlysystems you get subsidies of every kind. The general production is now emitting less than it did

before.

- Whose production are we talking about? Because there are many Europen companies, such

as the Spanish Endesa, which now emit less in Europe but still pollute a lot in South America

or other developing countries, no?

- Right, this is another big issue. When you calculate CO2 emissions you generally consider the

ones produced here but of course you could include the ones produced in China which have beenemitted to produce items that we use here. Germany, which exports more than it imports, claims itsCO2 balance in not correct because part of it was emitted while producing goods that are exportedafterwards.

- Who do you think should make the first big step to change things?

- Governments and consumers should try to push the lobbies. My personal believe is that climatechange is too big of an issue for the single consumer to change, so governments should implementsmall and effective tools such as the CO2 tax- and motivate the consumer to buy environmentalfriendly products so the lobbies could compete for the best solution and not have the monopoly.


8/11

La (cattiva) qualit dellaria: il (cattivo) esempio di Roma

Raffaella Tolicetti

Linquinamente dellaria della citt un problema grave, ma il comune di Roma stenta a trovaresoluzioni per risolvere tale situazione. Ai nostri rischi e pericoli.

La comunit scientifica allarma, i politici promettono cambiamenti drastici e poi fanno poco oniente. O peggio ancora, fanno tutto il contrario. Per lottare contro linquinamento atmosferico aRoma, ci vuole pi che il fermo delle macchine una volta al mese o limposizione delle targhealterne di tanto in quanto. Sono misure di emergenza, simboliche, che fanno scenderetemporaneamente il livello dellinquinamento, che risale a picco appena si riprende il ritmonormale. Laria di Roma infatti molto inquinato, ma data la sua posizione geografica favorevole,

basterebbero poche politiche a livello locale per migliorare nettamente laria che si respira nellaCapitale.

Lindutria, il riscaldamento e il traffico dei veicoli sono le principali fonti di inquinamento

dellatmosfera. In particolare a Roma il trasporto stradale emette circa il 60% dellinquinamentoatmosferico. Roma si posiziona al primo posto in quanto a tasso di motorizzazione, uno dei pi altial mondo con 76 auto ogni 100 abitanti, oltre il triplo di quante ce ne sono a New York (20) e ildoppio di quelle che circolano a Londra (36)1. Senza contare i motorini.Queste fonti di emissione riversano nellaria grandi quantit di sostanze inquinanti quali polverisottili, ozono e biossido di azoto, tutte rilasciate dal veicolo e altamente tossiche dopo prolungataesposizione.

Abbiamo cercato di capire con Marcello Petitta, ricercatore in fisica atmosferica e qualit dellariaallEurac, quali sono queste sostanze inquinanti e quali effetti hanno sulla salute umana esullambiente.

Le polveri sottili sono piccole particelle rilasciate nellaria, la cui fonte pu essere naturale oppureantropica. In questo caso diventano pericolose per la salute, soprattutto per quelle di dimensioneinferiore ai 2,5 microgrammi, che si infiltrano pi facilmente nellapparato respiratorio. Quandorespiriamo entrano nei nostri alveoli polmonari fino a provocare patologie respiratorie o cardio-vascolari. La legge prevede che il limite medio giornaliero di 50 microgrami/metro cubo nondovrebbe essere superato pi di 35 giorni allanno. A Roma invece, nel 2009 sono stati registrati 67giorni di superamento.

Un altro fattore inquinante lozono. molto reattivo e pericoloso per la natura, anche perch

infinitamente pi piccolo delle polveri sottili. Il dato positivo che viene emesso a basseconcentrazioni; ma questo viene controbilanciato dalla sua particolarit di rimanere vicino al suolo,e quindi di essere molto pericoloso per bambini, animali e piante. Dal 1 gennaio 2010 in Italia entrato in vigore il limite per la protezione della salute umana di 120 microgrammi/metro cubo danon superare per pi di 25 giorni in un anno2. Per ora i dati del 2009 per Roma hanno registrato 34giorni di superamento di tale limite.Infine unaltra sostanza inquinante il biossido di azoto. Il limite annuo di 40 microgrammi permetrocubo per giorno. Anche qui Roma lo supera, con un valore medio di emissione di 51,9microgrammi per metrocubo.

Quali risposte deve dare lamministrazione comunale per invertire la tendenza e migliorare laria di

Roma? Il problema non irrisolvibile, anzi. Data la sua vicinanza con il mare e la sua apertura aiventi, Roma gode di un sito vantaggioso. Aiutata da politiche ambientali efficaci e coerenti, laCapitale potrebbe usufruire di unaria pulita. Ma, si sa, il bene dei cittadini non sempre la priorit


9/11

dei politici, che sono pi attenti ai voti che alla salute di chi li elegge.Purtroppo le proposte dellamministrazione comunale romana sono state, nellultimo anno e mezzo,

piuttosto discutibili, e hanno favorito pi il trasporto privato che quello pubblico. Ultimo deiprovvedimenti poco condivisibili, la prevista inaugurazione di un circuito della Formula 1 nellazona dellEur, area intasata di traffico e di entrata e uscita dalla capitale.Inoltre nel gennaio 2009 stata avviata una procedura di infrazione da parte della Commissione

Europea nei confronti dellItalia per lelevato livello di polveri sottili e per linsufficienza dei pianidi risanamento dellaria delle Regioni.

Non ci possiamo accontentare di fissare dei limiti che siano solamente strumentali al fine di darciuna buona coscienza ecologica o, peggio ancora, ai fini di ottenere e mantenere il potere. Ma si sache la vita del politico breve e ragiona perlopi in termini di immediatezza, con misure che nonvanno oltre la proiezione dei quattro o cinque anni successivi. Mentre la scienza ha bisogno di studisu lungo termine, e appella a misure molto pi drastiche. Lobiettivo da raggiungere non dovrebbeessere una parziale riduzione dellinquinamento bens un radicale cambiamento nellapproccioallambiente. E per questo, servono la riduzione dei consumi e quindi delle emissioni; luso dienergie rinnovabili e il potenziamento dei trasporti pubblici; il risparmio dellenergia. La difesa

dellecologia deve essere fatta non per fini politici ma perch tutti, come esseri umani, abbiamointeresse a difendere lambiente che ci circonda. A cominciare dallaria che respiriamo.


10/11

Remote sensors alert on gasping monuments

Katerina Pantelidi

Monuments are for humans their link to the past and still their identity at present days. Despitesuffocating in modern times the monuments stubbornly do not give up. They insist on remaining the

point of reference for the generations to come. Researchers on cultural heritage preservationAlexandra Troi and Anna Maria Siani in a parallel talk give their evidence on how remote sensingtechnology helps scientists to detect the monuments behaviour throughout centuries and reach thecauses of their wounds.Have you ever wondered how tough is for the monuments to stand alive in the hostile environmentmodern human has condemned them to live in? Diverse climatic and human parameters have

provoked serious damages throughout the years making it sometimes exceptionally difficult forthem to continue living. Ten to twenty years ago, sulphar was the number one threat. Nowadays

pollution has changed. Dusts, nitrogen, ozone are more important factors that affect their status.Scientists make studies on heritage preservation elaborating relative benefactory techniques.Alexandra Troi, head of the EURAC Renewable Energy Institute, has especially worked on how the

microclimate interacts with the building in terms of temperature, humidity and other key factorsalways depending on the structure and the condition of the monument.Anna Maria Siani, researcher in the Physics Department of Sapienza University of Rome, focuseson measuring the high quality UV, total ozone and nitrogen dioxide with microclimate being part ofher studies, too.Both use ground based remote sensing technology to collect their data. Via sensors they manage tomonitor the physical chemical key parameters which provide information on the status of thecultural heritage and its deterioration. What for? To evidence causes and effects. So, in other words,what they learn about the monuments is how much they may suffer from inadequate environmentalconditions but also how much they were able to keep their structure over the centuries. It is worthmentioning that applications of remote sensing technology have started in the last couple of decadesmainly in countries with a big cultural heritage.For Anna Maria Siani the remote sensing of environmental parameters, both outdoor and indoor, isvery important. The damage generated by microclimate variability is universally recognized. Whatis more surprising is that the damage we could have been causing in modern times is often the mostdramatic in the history of human civilization she points out without second thoughts.Alexandra Troi agrees and augments on that. Lets take the example of a wooden church. Due toclimatic factors such as humidity, wood volume changes. Any painting layer on it would flake. Thiswood was in equilibrium over hundreds of years with humidity ranging in normal levels. Ifhumidity changes drastically in a short time of 50 years in contrast to this quite constant condition,this indeed has consequences.

When scientists diagnose that a monument is at risk, they put sensors on it to scan its condition.Sensors are put on different points and are left there possibly for years reporting data on humidity,on pollution regarding certain gases or else, each time depending on the purpose of the research.The data is collected with hourly resolution or less, temporary is stored in a data-logger. Afterwardsthis data is downloaded on the site or from a remote server every six months. Statistical elaboration,modeling and verification of models follow. The last steps are the interpretation of results and theapplication.Once I had put sensors in 30 churches in order to study how the different types of heating systemsinfluence the temperature and the humidity in the church and how does this affect the artwork in thechurch. Occasionally I visited the churches to take the recorded data remembers Alexandra Troi.But technology moves on. In the margin of the Smart Monitoring of Historic Structure (SMOTHs)

programme, Alexandra Troi and her team try to develop sensor systems that do not only store the data butcommunicate it, too. For that purpose five case studies are in progress. The monuments under research areselected upon criteria having to do with differences in the climate, the structure and the problematic of themonuments. We test the system we try to produce based on data from other researches made on the


11/11

particular buildings in the past. Our aim is to provide new information and new sensor devices to the market,more advanced and energy saver.Scientific research on the field draws information from the Noahs Ark programme. Specialized in

predictions about the climate in 10, 20, 50 years, Noahs Ark programme tries to understand what the climatechange means for the buildings. How could more rain, more dry periods, wet storms be dangerous for our

buildings and how could we eliminate that phenomenon? The Noahs Ark provides scientists with theanswers upon which their research goes a step further.

For those who wonder, the results of scientific research do not stay in the institutes drawers. In some cases,the directors of museums and other important historic buildings have taken into consideration our results butI can say this is not the rule. Anna Sieni gives her experience pointing out that unfortunately, not alwaysaction is taken.What needs to be done? Adopting a monument is an action that could be undertaken at the university level,Anna Sieni proposes. Students could adopt a monument during their degree thesis monitoring its status and

protect it from any act of vandalism or, at a larger scale, by university departments and institutes. This needsa network of institutes and a strong will to direct European fundings in this direction.Market awareness and social activation are other two key factors that could give solutions towards thecultural heritage preservation. Scientists and journalists undertake the mission to make familiar to the marketand to the society that remote sensing technology opens the way towards taking targeted action. Sensorscould provide a better diagnosis of the deterioration mechanisms and set off strategies for any possiblemeasure. But what would guarantee the monuments viability would be a multidisciplinary cooperation

between scientists of microclimate and the science of conservation together with policies to adopt strategiesof protection methods.Towards that direction, is it scientists that have to leave their laboratories and institutes and come closer tothe society? Spending days between quality control of remote sensing instruments measurements, teachingand meeting with students, exams, research activity and, unfortunately, lots of bureaucratic paperwork, AnnaMaria Siani highlights that it is wrong to think that scientists live in their own ivory towers.Though scientists work appears removed from more urgent issues, as often shown in the past, their

proposals and solutions can be applied often years later to deal with completely different situations andtopics. It is true that some scientific topics are difficult to disseminate but the many forms of moderncommunication can make the public aware of scientific progress.

For the sake of cultural heritage preservation, journalists take up the role to help scientists reach the society.They are here to promote their work, motivate the market and give both a big push towards taking action.What is more? They are here to save scientists from the disappointment that they are alone in what they aredoing. They are here to wipe out their fear by communicating properly the importance of their job.Remote sensing technology has made it possible to come up with the proper solutions. Though the society ismoving towards the right direction coordinated action is what is missing. Only when such action is takenmonuments will breathe at last, and safely be able to stay with us for the centuries to come.

Environment-Bolzano Media Works Set

Documents

Transcript of Environment-Bolzano Media Works Set