How is your risk-ometer? Many people are contemplating their relationship with risk after seeing the tragic consequences of the Whakaari White Island disaster.
Adventure and travel always carries some risk, so where do we draw the line?
Thousands of tourists had taken the trip to the crater and they had always gotten away with it.
On the other hand, serious eruptions capable of causing fatalities were far from rare at White Island - averaging perhaps one in every three years over the last century.
People are already taking sides about whether the risk of tourist visits was justified, or whether it can ever be taken again in the future.
What can we agree on?
First, there are people who make it their life's work to study volcanoes, amassing historical data and developing sophisticated ways to read warning signs.
GNS volcanologists communicate globally and use international best practice monitoring and assessment. Ignoring them and trusting some self-appointed expert would be stupid.
• White Island eruption: 'We have a plan' - experts to brave volatile White Island at first light
• White Island eruption: Newlyweds tell of crucial decision in 10-minute escape
• White Island eruption: Australian family's sad posts about missing relatives
• White Island eruption: More than $73,000 raised for young guide recovering from severe burns
Second, that data should be used to give the public full up-to-date disclosure of their risk including the consequences if it all goes wrong. Then individuals can make their own assessment.
A retiree with no dependents and relatively less life left to risk might find it easier to go ahead than a student or, a young family with children who they are considering taking along.
Third, the Government or another regulator needs to play a role.
Enterprises with financial stakes are too close to the action to be left with all the responsibility. For the sake of our national tourism brand, if nothing else, we need to set standards to protect people from undue hazards. In some cases, we might put a total restriction on exposing children to high risk.
We will no doubt find a way forward because the dangers are now clear and people can individually decide their tolerance level.
Which leads us to the Time magazine Person of the Year. Yes, Greta Thunberg annoys a lot of boomers - but not me. I think her special mix of thinking and action is a light we should follow when it comes to global climate risk.
First, she recognises it is stupid to ignore the real climatologists - just as it would be to ignore real volcanologists.
Not for her the dangerous mythology of alternative facts being just as good as what real data is telling us. There is a well-funded disinformation machine challenging the science but she can already recognise an orchestrated litany of lies.
Second, Greta wants the public to know the facts and not be led to wilfully ignore the risks. As she eloquently reminds us, this is not a time when older generations can lead the debate based on their needs.
This is essentially a young people and coming generations issue because it is their future melting away as fast as the ice sheets.
• Premium - Conservation Comment: SOS, we need more writers
• Conservation Comment: Population politics?
• Conservation comment: How we can halt climate change
• Conservation Comment: Please don't vilify farmers; we're on your side
And finally, continuing the parallel with our present disaster, those who profit from the fossil fuel burning should not be allowed to control the regulators any more than we should let adventure tourist businesses make up whatever rules they see as giving the best profit despite the risk.
Like Greta, I can see how many "leaders" around the world have sold out to short term profits that destroy environments. Like her, this makes me angry and determined to push for more change.
Stand up young people, for your own and each other's interests. The young person on the cover of Time is a good role model.