Concluding Remarks - Thank You for Supporting My Blog!

Unfortunately, I am nearing the end of my blog for the foreseeable future as I will be focusing my attention on other university work - thank you for sticking with me for the ride! I hope you have learned something! I will be hopefully returning to this blog once this academic year is out the way, so stay tuned.

To conclude, the purpose of my blog has been to highlight the multifaceted ways in which climate change can contribute to an increase in natural hazards, and ultimately, disasters. It is important to remember that a hazard does not always create a disaster, but that vulnerability and exposure play a huge role in determining the impact of a disaster, and they in turn are influenced (in my opinion) by dimensions such as wealth, gender and ethnicity. In fact, it seems as if most of you are convinced that gender influences vulnerability to climate change, as shown by the results from my poll - with a huge 72% believing so.

Responses to the question: do you think climate change has a gendered impact?

As we move towards an increasingly volatile future due to anthropogenic climate change, we must remember to prepare for the natural hazards that will undoubtedly increase in both frequency and intensity. It is important that we put pressure on governments to pass policy that recognises the growing threat of climate change, rather than seek to implement strategies that merely cut costs (e.g. David Cameron cutting the solar panel subsidies after COP21, and the scrapping of a £1bn carbon capture project). Despite these measures being masqueraded as initiatives to keep energy prices down, some may, in fact, increase energy prices (shown in the table below). We must also recognise that hard-engineering techniques are not always the answer to mitigate growing threats, such as flooding, and perhaps more considered strategies that work with nature, rather than against it, will be most beneficial in the long-term. 

Planned Conservative policy changes since election	Is this likely to cut or increase bills?	Is this likely to increase CO2 emissions?
Block solar in the countryside	Increase	Yes
Cut industrial solar subsidy	Cut	Yes
Cut solar subsidy on homes	Cut	Yes
Cut biomass subsidy	Cut	Yes
Cut biogas subsidy	Cut	Yes
Scrap Green Deal	Increase	Yes
Cut zero carbon homes	Increase	Yes
Impose carbon tax on renewables	Debatable	Yes
Block onshore wind	Increase	Yes
Increase tax on small cars	Increase	Yes
Tax breaks for oil and gas industry	Neutral	Yes
Cut zero carbon offices	Increase	Yes
Cut support for community energy	Cut	Yes
Sell Green Investment Bank	No impact	Debatable
Freeze fuel duty escalator	Cut	Yes
Diesel generator subsidy increase	Increase	Yes

Source

Final thoughts on COP21

I realise that, despite COP21 being such an important event in 2015, that I've said relatively little about it. I think there has been greater understanding, as shown by the talks, that anthropogenic change and natural hazards are interrelated. More must be done in the industrialised nations to curb CO2 concentrations, particularly when regarding CO2 emissions per capita, which in these nations tends to be incredibly high. This has been echoed by Indian PM Narendra Modi who links CO2 emissions in developed countries to recent disastrous flooding in Chennai. However, perhaps it is most important to give smaller island nations a larger voice in climate change negotiations in the future, as they risk losing everything - being completely submerged by rising sea levels, and a subsequent migrant crisis that will affect us all. I think, COP21 has been an event of great promises, but it is up to us to make sure these promises are made a reality. 

Bye for now! x

Volcanism and Environmental Change

There are several theories relating to how volcanoes can influence climate, with eruptions being able to both cool climate and warm it up. I thought this would be an interesting post for my blog as instead of focusing on how climate influences natural hazards, I’m going to be looking at the reverse. It is well documented that volcanism can reduce atmospheric temperatures - on both a regional and global scale (for example, with regards to the Little Ice Age, check out this interesting paper on how volcanism may have played a larger part than solar forcing in its onset) - but what about atmospheric temperature increase?

An interesting debate involving both scientists and climate change sceptics alike focuses on the emission of CO2 from volcanoes. During eruptions, CO2 is emitted, having the potential to promote global warming. Scientists, such as Robin Wylie from University College London state how, before anthropogenic changes to the earth, CO2 changes were largely controlled by volcanic activity. At present, it is difficult to know just exactly how much CO2 is produced by volcanoes, but even those considered inactive can still make serious contributions to the atmosphere through ‘diffuse CO2’ (see page 3). When taking this into account, new studies have shown that volcanic degassing contributes much more to global CO2 than previously thought. In 1991, volcanic degassing was estimated to release 79 million tonnes of CO2 each year - a recent study by Burton (2013) places this figure at around 540 million tonnes. More data needs to be collected, but the results are clear: volcanic activity is significant. Indeed, this data is being pushed by climate change sceptics like Australian Geologist Ian Plimer, who argue that volcanoes release more CO2 than human activity; in particular submarine volcanoes, of which little data has been collected.

Volcanic eruptions: a huge emitter of atmospheric CO2? Source

However, even with the new 540 million tonne estimation, volcanic activity still pales in comparison to data released for human emissions of CO2 - estimated at just shy of 40 billion tonnes a year in 2013. This dwarfs the annual CO2 emissions of all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2011). While atmospheric concentrations have stayed between 190-280 parts per million (ppm) for the last 400,000 years (Zeebe and Caldeira, 2008), it recently peaked at 400ppm in 2015. It is my opinion that this information debunks the theory of volcanic activity contributing more CO2 than anthropogenic climate change.

It would be great to hear what you think on this - do you think there is enough evidence to be sceptical of anthropogenic climate change due to volcanic CO2 emissions? Let me know!

Natural Disasters and the Risk of Disease Epidemics

Following a natural disaster, the impacts can often be long-lasting, owing to damaged infrastructure, loss of agricultural land, businesses, and so on. A key concern also includes the sudden risk of disease epidemics, as vulnerability to disease increases after a disaster. Interestingly, vulnerability to natural hazards can also be exacerbated by disease - as well as other variables such poverty, conflict and population displacement (Basher, 2006). Developing countries are disproportionally affected as they lack resources, infrastructure, and disaster-preparedness systems (Watson et al., 2007).

The type of diseases that a natural disaster can exacerbate vary. After the 2004 Bangladeshi floods, contaminated drinking water caused the outbreak of diarrhoeal disease, found in over 17,000 cases (Watson et al., 2007). A large cholera epidemic (over 16,000 cases) was also noted in West Bengal in 1998 which was attributed to the preceding floods (Sur et al., 2000). Diseases such as tetanus and clusters of measles had spread following the 2005 Pakistan earthquake - particularly when routine vaccination coverage levels were low.

Pakistan earthquake 2005. Source

A common misconception is that diseases following a natural disaster are mostly spread from dead bodies, and thus this can lead to inappropriate burial of the dead without proper identification (Morgan, 2004). The most dangerous conditions are when dead bodies have contaminated water supplies; gastroenteritis being the most notable problem as corpses will commonly leak feaces - although communities will rarely use a water supply is they know it to be contaminated. Watson et al. (2007) argue that dead bodies can pose a serious health risk in a few situations that require specific precautions, such as deaths from cholera or hemorrhagic fevers. However (Morgan, 2004) contests this, stating that the causative agents in infections such as typhoid and cholera are unable to survive long in the human body following death, and therefore dead bodies pose little risk.

Rather, the main initiator of disease is reported to be displacement of a population following a natural disaster. This is due to overcrowding, limited water and sanitation supplies, and poor medical facilities which increase the risk of communicable disease transmission. The risk of outbreaks is associated with the size, health status and living conditions of the population displaced by the natural disaster.

Meterological events such as hurricanes, cyclones and flooding can affect vector breeding sites and vector-borne disease transmission (WHO, 2006). Standing water which is a result of heavy rainfall or overflow of rivers can create new breeding sites for mosquitoes. In a displaced population, there is an overcrowding of susceptible hosts coupled with a weakened health infrastructure and interruptions of ongoing disease control programmes, which contribute as risk factors for vector-borne disease transmission. Changing of habitats resulting from landslide deforestation, river damming and re-routing can also contribute to mosquito breeding.

As global environmental change is likely to exacerbate vulnerability to vector-borne diseases (e.g. malaria and cholera), it is important for disaster mitigation strategies to acknowledge the potential increase in secondary impacts such as disease epidemics resulting from hazards. Perhaps a most suitable solution, following this research, is to carry out effective strategies to avoid overcrowding when a population is displaced, and to provide more immediate substitute water and sanitation supplies to the effected population. What do you think is a suitable strategy to deal with disease outbreaks?

Re-meandering and Rewilding River Systems: An Effective Flood Management Strategy in the UK?

   Storm Desmond was an extratropical cyclone; so far has the fourth named storm of the 2015-16 UK and Ireland windstorm season. Desmond was notable for directing a plume of moist air, known as an atmospheric river, which brought record amounts of orographic rainfall to uplands areas of northern Atlantic Europe and subsequent major floods. The worst affected areas in the UK were centered on Cumbria, Lancashire and the Scottish borders, with severe rain and flooding also reported in Northumberland, north Wales and Yorkshire. The storm broke the UK's 24-hour rainfall record, with 341.4 mm of rain falling in Honister Pass, Cumbria on the 5th of December (Met Office, 2015). As a consequence, 43,000 homes across the north of England were left without power, 3 people died and the damage cost £400-500 million. The damage was not solely confined to human impacts, however - ecology was also greatly harmed. For example, this somewhat flippant article from The Metro about a ‘sad otter’ does actually demonstrate that flooding can be a very hazardous time for young otters; they can easily be washed out of their holts by high rivers, and at that age are not accomplished swimmers.

River Eden burst its banks in Appleby due to Storm Desmond. Source

   On Tuesday 8th December, on the Today Programme on Radio 4, George Monbiot - an environmentalist - and Meurig Raymond - the President of the National Farmers Union - engaged in a debate over the impacts and possible causes of Storm Desmond flooding in the North of England. I thought this debate very fitting to my blog, it distinctly fits in well with my previous blogpost on Storm Abigail. With extreme weather events set to increase with climate change, it is vital that we look at ways to mitigate flooding effectively, particularly with the devastating impacts flooding has on urban areas. You can get the podcast of this debate here, at 2:48:00 into the episode.

   George Monbiot is an accomplished writer, known for his environmental and political activism, and weekly column in The Guardian. In this debate, he first began by outlining the issue with current flood mitigation strategies: instead of preventing the flood from happening, we wait and act after it has hit. We should, he argued, use soft engineering approaches as a flood prevention strategy, such as reforesting bare hills and rewilding river systems. This is for a number of reasons - by reforesting hills, the percolation rate into the soil will increase and therefore water is released more slowly. Additionally, by rewilding rivers and allowing them to meander, to form islands and banks of gravel and shingle, the river system will become more dynamic, and the flow of water will be held back.

   The processes of channelisation and river dredging were described by Monbiot as turning rivers into ‘straight drains’, whereby water bypasses farmland, but subsequently then rushes into the nearest settlement. Furthermore, bare hilltops produced from pastoral grazing has meant that too much water cascades down hillslopes that rivers are unable to contain; either water is allowed to spread over agricultural land, or it is sped past farmland through dredging and channel clearing, whereupon it comes down to the nearest ‘urban pinchpoint’ - such as a bridge. The resulting impact is the flooding of homes and the threatening of lives. To illustrate his point, Monbiot drew upon the example of the River Liza in the Lake District, where rewilding strategies meant that even after the last massive rainfall in 2009, the river was still running clear as all other rivers in the surrounding areas were bursting their banks.

Meandering River Liza in Ennerdale. Source

   In contrast, Meurig Raymond stance on flood management differed greatly, advocating hard engineering techniques. He argued that the flooding impacts from Storm Desmond resulted from too little investment in river dredging, channel clearing and flood defences - and that there should be more money set aside for maintenance of rivers to keep channels clear. One of his main defences of hilltop farming was that it attracted tourists into north, due to farming practices shaping the tapestry of land in an aesthetically pleasing manner. Sheep farming, food production, and agriculture, he argued, are vital to maintain wealth created by the tourism industry. Interestingly, and rather unexpectedly, Raymond stated that livestock numbers are now falling, and vegetation is increasing overall, with undergrazing now causing a larger problem than overgrazing. Therefore, water is being held back by the current fabric of the countryside. He rounded off the debate by stressing the importance of agriculture - as both a creator of top quality beef and lamb, but also as a generator of wealth.

Bare hills in Cumbria due to hilltop farming. Source

  The majority of the public listening to the debate seemed to concur with Monbiot’s opinion - that rewilding river systems can prevent flooding (shown through the handle @BBCr4today on Twitter). However, farmers have expressed anger at Monbiot’s seemingly ‘anti-farming’ rhetoric, expressed in his various articles and interviews, and argue that he has little knowledge of hilltop farming practices. Personally, I agree with Monbiot; I think rewilding river systems would be an incredibly beneficial mitigation strategy to control flooding. What do you think - is rewilding a viable solution, or has land-use changed so much that it is near impossible to go back to such an environment?

Japan Case Study Part 2: How The Tohoku and Fukushima Disaster Changed Public Opinion on Nuclear Power as a Low Carbon Energy Source

When I first visited Japan on a 3 month travelling trip, it was one and a half years after the magnitude 9 Tohoku earthquake and tsunami that hit northern Honshu in 2011. I had met some people in youth hostels there who were international students studying in Sendai temporarily, who still described Sendai as a 'complete wreck' from the disaster. Having just come from Tokyo, the stark difference in damage between the two regions was palpable, and contamination from the Fukushima nuclear disaster was still being reported worldwide.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  The Tohoku earthquake struck offshore of Japan, along a subduction zone where two of Earth’s tectonic plates collide, with the tremor releasing centuries of build up stress between the Pacific and the Eurasian plates. The fault contained a slippery clay layer which lined the fault, which researchers believed to have allowed the two plates to slide an enormous distance of around 50 meters. The earthquake began on the 11th March, at 2.46pm local time, and lasted approximately six minutes. The epicenter was centered on the seafloor 45 miles east of Tohoku, at a depth of 15 miles.

  The earthquake caused a confirmed death toll of 15,893 as of the 10th November 2015, according to Japan’s National Police Agency. The majority of deaths were caused by drowning from the destructive tsunami waves that reached heights of up to 39 meters. Many of Japan’s coastal flood defences were decimated from the impact.

  Perhaps one of the most devastating impacts from the tsunami was the resulting ‘nuclear meltdown’ in Fukushima, which caused a cooling system failure at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant and the subsequent release of radioactive materials. The tsunami, which reached 13 meters tall in this area, completely overwhelmed the 10 meter sea wall put in place to protect the plant. Trace amounts of radioactivity, including iodine-131, caesium-134 and caesium-137 were widely observed, causing the worst nuclear accident since the 1986 Chernobyl disaster. In July 2013, the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) admitted that around 300 tonnes of radioactive water continued to leak from the plant everyday into the Pacific Ocean.

A fire at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant resulting from the tsunami. Source

  Unsurprisingly, the Tohoku disaster completely changed public opinion on nuclear power, both nationwide and internationally. The Fukushima disaster came at a time of global resurgence in nuclear energy facility development, with an estimated 360 gigawatts of additional nuclear generating capacity projected to be developed worldwide by 2035, on top of the 390 gigawatts already in use (IEA, 2010). The renewed interest in nuclear energy is in part due to its potential as a low carbon energy source, but also due to concerns about energy security as demand for energy is growing worldwide (Butler et al., 2011). In the case of Japan, government adopted policies aimed at improving energy efficiency and reducing the demand for oil by harnessing nuclear power, resulted in Japan becoming the most energy-efficient country in the world (The Economist, 2011). However, since the disaster, Japan has dropped to number six (Young et al., 2014). This is due to dwindling public support and policy changes on the use of nuclear power after Fukushima (Vivoda, 2011), with Japan increasing consumption of fossil fuels to make up for the loss of nuclear power.

While the full extent of the events at Fukushima were still rippling through global energy policy discourses, there was seen to be a deeper understanding of the risk of nuclear power, and a withdrawal of policy support particularly in Japan. There were also clear implications of the accident on government spending: the expenditure for compensation alone was estimated to be $124 billion (McCurry, 2011). Subsequently, significant proportions of the public in Japan and in other countries withdrew their support for nuclear power, shown in Figure 2. Similarly, Visschers and Siegrist’s (2012) paper on acceptance of nuclear power showed that in Switzerland, acceptance, perceptions and trust of nuclear power significantly decreased after the Fukushima accident.

Figure 2: Respondents who opposed nuclear energy to produce electricity either: a. previously to the Fukushima disaster; or b. recently due to the disaster in 2011. Poll conducted in April 2011. Source

Although the Fukushima disaster may have killed much of the momentum that nuclear power had gained, many still argue that nuclear power is a safe energy alternative and that the disaster resulted from insufficient safety regulations in Japan - which apparently does not exist in the USA (Stoutenborough et al., 2013). Similarly, in the UK, policymakers remained firm on their decision to increase nuclear power generation in the near future (Wittneben, 2012), which may have stemmed from limited media coverage due to the deployment of UK ground troops into Libya soon after. 

Overall, the truth remains that nuclear power offers a viable low carbon solution to feed the world's growing energy needs. At COP21, experts warned that renewable energy offers 'too little too late', and that policy makers should embrace nuclear power as an alternative to fossil fuels. Has the world already forgotten the tragedy of the Fukushima disaster - or have advances in nuclear power regulations made its use more safe? With environmental change set to increase the frequency of natural disasters, are we at risk of another serious nuclear contamination? Let me know what you think!

Japan Case Study Part 1: hazards, risks, vulnerability and mitigation

Hi everyone! Sorry for the delay in posting ! This post is going to give a very brief introduction to natural hazards in Japan, and will also mention a couple of mitigation methods the Japanese government is implementing/planning to implement. Any comments greatly appreciated :)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Japan is a country comprised of a series of islands in the western Pacific Ocean, and is an example of an arc-trench system, situated in a subduction zone between the margins of 4 tectonic plates: the North American, Eurasian, Philippine and Pacific plates (GLGArcs, n/a). Many of the islands are volcanic (the largest island being Honshu - home to Tokyo, Kyoto and Hiroshima) and are therefore characterised by a multitude of natural hazards. These include earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, mass movement and typhoons.

   In contrast to Ladakh, which is a low-income region, Japan has a GDP per capita of £25,362 and is currently the 3rd largest economy in the world. There is a huge difference in adaptability and mitigation between Ladakh and Japan, Japan has some of the most complex and expensive disaster mitigation management - although this is unequal between different regions.

Tectonic plates margins in Asia. Source

   Tokyo has been listed as the top city most at risk of natural hazards in the world, with the amount of vulnerable people in the Tokyo-Yokohama exceeding over 57 million (USA Today, 2013). However, Tokyo, due to its high wealth and capital manages to mitigate many of the hazards effectively. For example, in part of the response to the Tohoku earthquake in 2011, a 10 year project to promote earthquake-resistant joints was undertaken, whereby the replacement of 5,000 km in length of existing joints would be replaced by earthquake resistant ones. So far, the share of earthquake resistant joints has exceeded 35% (Mochizuki, 2015).

   Additionally, Tokyo has implemented an emergency water supply system, tested for quality each year, which would be able to supply the whole population of Tokyo should a natural hazard strike (Waterworks, 2012). In total, there are approximately 203 emergency supply bases across Tokyo (Mochizuki, 2015). These sources are reliant on community participation, with Tokyo Waterworks implementing training with local residents at each supply base. It provides a stark contrast to Ladakh, where any high magnitude earthquake would completely cut off water supply.

   I have already touched upon Japanese ‘earthquake-proof’ building design in a previous post, but Japan is now turning much of its attention to tsunami mitigation. A 400 km long sea wall along the North-East of Honshu, near Sendai is currently being constructed (where the devastating magnitude 9 Tohoku earthquake and tsunami hit in 2011 - but more of that in my next post!) to protect residents and infrastructure from flooding effects of tsunamis and typhoons (Gough, 2015). This sea wall - dubbed the ‘Great Wall of Japan’ - when finished, will be 5 stories high and is set to cost $6.8 billion. However, there have been many criticisms of this use of hard engineering methods, as opposed to soft engineering such as afforestation. Although afforestation will not stop a tsunami, it could help to slow down the speed of waves and prevent some debris being washed back out to sea (RT, 2015).

Building of the 'Great Wall of Japan'. Source

   Sea walls are fairly controversial in Japan; they are known to negatively affect oceanic wildlife by reducing biodiversity via loss of habitat (Galbraith et al., 2002), and are seen as unsightly. In some areas sea walls have been effective flood defences such as in Fundai; in others they have not. A breakwater which cost over $1 billion to construct to protect the city of Kamaishi instantly crumbled on impact during the Tohoku tsunami in 2011, killing around 1,000 people (The Economist, 2014). But, as climate change pushes sea level higher, and the frequency of natural hazards begins to increase, this may be the only viable solution that the government pursues - they are already planning to protect a further 14,000 km of coastline once the sea wall has been completed. What is your opinion on sea walls as a flood defence? Do the negative impacts to the environment outweigh the possible benefits to community safety or vice versa? Next posts will include: the Tohoku earthquake and tsunami, climate change and risk/vulnerability in Japan, and the social inequality in hazard mitigation.

Can Climate Change Cause Earthquakes and Volcanic Eruptions?

For my next blog posts, I am going to do another case-study saga similar to my posts on Ladakh, this time in Japan. I thought this might be an interesting contrast between two regions that are both hazard hot-spots, but with a wide gap in GDP. I was actually intending to start my Japan saga in this post, but I came upon some interesting articles online yesterday by a Geologist at UCL, Bill McGuire, that I wanted to talk about. These articles stated a causal link between climate change and geological hazards such as earthquakes and volcanoes.  I’d heard many times before that volcanic eruptions have the potential to change climate change, but never that climate change might cause eruptions. Let me know what you think in the comment section below!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Typically, when thinking of climate induced hazards, most of us (myself included) will think of mass movement, flooding, storms, droughts, etc. However, there is a growing body of evidence that supports the idea that climate change is linked to a potential growing frequency in geophysical hazards. The time scale that this operates over, however, is not entirely clear, so whether we will see the change in our lifetime is questionable. 

   In Iceland, for example, ice sheets that cover volcanoes such as the Eyjafjallajökull ice-sheet, are rapidly melting. During the melting period, large pressures that are exerted by the ice are beginning to lessen, which may have the effect of triggering volcanic eruptions. In other words, the change in weight alters the balance of forces atop of the Earth’s crust, decreasing lithostatic pressure (Loughlin, 2002). By geological standards, this change in weight can make the rebound take place very rapidly, destabilising the faults. The recent eruption of the Eyjafjallajökull volcano, which caused a European air-traffic stand-still, is thought by some to have resulted from the recent rapid warming of high-latitudes. However, this is still hotly debated, with some scientists predicting a significant lag-time of around 2,500 years before we would see the effects on volcanic activity.

Will there be more future eruptions of Eyjafjallajökull? Source

   Similarly, the loading and subsequent unloading of ice due to rapid warming on active faults could cause earthquakes, and even submarine landslides that have the potential to cause tsunamis. GPS measurements have revealed that the crust beneath the Greenland ice sheet is rebounding due to warming, providing the potential for future earthquakes. There is a possibility that this could trigger submarine landslides spawning tsunamis capable of threatening North Atlantic coastlines (McGuire, 2007). In fact, history may repeat itself, as during the last Ice Age, the melting of the ice caused increased seismicity along the margins of ice sheets in Scandinavia, resulting in these submarine landslides (McGuire, 2012).

   Ice melt from climate change will predominantly enter the ocean, and additionally, as temperatures rise, the water in the ocean will expand in a process named ‘thermal expansion’ or steric sea-level rise (IPCC, N/A). Both these two factors will result in global sea level rise. This extra weight could apply extra pressure to faults near coastlines, effectively ‘bending’ the crust. This compression could push magma lying around underneath a volcano, triggering eruptions. For example, the seasonal eruptions of Pavlof volcano in Alaska tend to occur during the winter months when the regional sea-level is only 30cm higher than during the summer (McGuire, 2012), highlighting the sensitivity of some volcanoes to sea-level change.  Additionally, McGuire et al. (1997) examined the change in the rate of sea-level rise and volcanic activity in the Mediterranean for the past 80,000 years, finding that when sea level rose quickly, more volcanic eruptions occurred, increasing at a staggering 300%.

However, many geologists such as Roland Burgmann of the University of Berkeley, California are doubtful of the validity of these claims. They state that catastrophic rates of sea level rise in the future are uncertain, and that the current rate of rise - around 3mm per year (NASA, 2015) - is not enough to destabilise the crust. When researching for this article, I was surprised at how little literature seemed to address this issue, which perhaps indicates that it is of little cause for concern. What do you think?