As the worlds financial markets plunge into crisis, United Nations leaders and top economists are working on a new Green deal to create millions of jobs, revive the world economy, reduce poverty and avert environmental disaster.
A new, landmark study on the impact of an emerging global "green economy" on the world of work says efforts to tackle climate change could result in the creation of millions of new "green jobs" in the coming decades.
The new report entitled Green Jobs: Towards Decent work in a Sustainable, Low-Carbon World, says changing patterns of employment and investment resulting from efforts to reduce climate change and its effects are already generating new jobs in many sectors and economies, and could create millions more in both developed and developing countries.
Green jobs reduce the environmental impact of enterprises and economic sectors, ultimately to levels that are sustainable. The report focuses on "green jobs" in agriculture, industry, services and administration that contribute to preserving or restoring the quality of the environment. The promise of a green technological and industrial revolution is at hand; a new age of green economics and truly sustainable development. But have we the political will to support it?
The possibility of a shift to renewable sources of energy is now available to us along with more efficient public transport, energy conservation and sustainable development. But have we the political will to transform our economy and society? The shift to a greener economy needs urgent assistance; there is no trade off in waiting for the economy to improve as the costs of inaction – in ecological, human and financial terms – will far exceed the costs of action now.
The report says that climate change itself, adaptation to it and efforts to arrest it by reducing emissions have far-reaching implications for economic and social development, for production and consumption patterns and thus for employment, incomes and poverty reduction. These implications harbour both major risks and opportunities for working people in all countries, but particularly for the most vulnerable in the least developed countries and in small island States.
Dr Pachauri, Chairman of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Head said “the world has reached an unprecedented level of awareness of the science behind climate change, with the contents of the IPCC’s fourth assessment disseminated extensively by the media worldwide. A growing number of people- and not just environmentalists- now believe that climate change is not a concern for the distant future but something we are witnessing here and now. Never before has human society been gripped by such a strong realisation of the need to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels- and even change our lifestyles- in order to reduce emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases”
According to the report meaningful social dialogue between government, workers and employers will be essential not only to ease tensions and support better informed and more coherent environmental, economic and social policies, but for all social partners to be involved in the development of such policies.
However, the report also finds that the process of climate change, already underway, will continue to have negative effects on workers and their families, especially those whose livelihoods depend on agriculture and tourism. Action to tackle climate change as well as to cope with its effects is therefore urgent.
The report finds that green markets have thrived and transformation has advanced most where there has been strong and consistent political support at the highest level, including targets, penalties and incentives such as feed-in laws and efficiency standards for buildings and appliances as well as proactive research and development.
In reference to the current international financial turmoil and its implications for climate change Dr Pachauri noted that “What we have today is no routine downturn in the conventional economic cycle. It is, and is seen to be, the crossroads in human progress that compels a major turn in direction. I believe the current generation is ready for such a shift and is unlikely to be distracted for long by an economic downturn that emanates from serious systemic distortions in the existing patterns of growth”
The report calls for the delivery of a deep and decisive new climate agreement when countries meet for the crucial UN climate convention meeting in Copenhagen in late 2009 will be vital for accelerating green job growth. These and other matters will be addressed in be addressed at the Partnership for Change Climate Change Conference to be held in Cork on the 14th Nov next.
The report was funded and commissioned by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) under a joint Green Jobs Initiative with the International Labour Office (ILO), and the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) and the International Organization of Employers (IOE), which together represent millions of workers and employers worldwide. It was produced by the Worldwatch Institute, with technical assistance from the Cornell University Global Labour Institute. Dr Pachauri is Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and is Director General of The Energy &Resources Institute (TERI)
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
The economics of ecosystem and Biodiversity
ECONOMISTS are joining up with scientists to help save the planet threatened by global warming while species disappear at an alarming rate.
A major report says that much of the solution is to use and work with nature rather than just putting resources into expensive technology. The key joint EU-German global study, The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity, shows that it is essential to protect nature and that up to now we have failed to appreciate its value. For the first time the study has calculated the cost of using nature to clean drinking water as against building treatment plants; closing off and protecting fishing grounds; protecting areas of natural beauty. Eventually around one in every six jobs in Europe depends on the environment, or one in 40 if you take a narrow definition of such jobs based on organic farming, sustainable forestry and green forms of tourism. They show that controlling and adapting to climate change is closely linked to halting the loss of biodiversity.
For instance, the loss and damage to forests is responsible for around 20% of global CO2 – more than all forms of transport combined and points to the need for a halt to deforestation. On fisheries the study says that it is an underperforming asset in danger of collapse and is generating €34 billion less than it could. The study found that the benefit of protected areas under the EU’s Natura scheme is considerable. Species are becoming extinct at up to 1,000 times the normal rate so that more than half the earth’s ecosystem has been degraded in the past 50 years. Should this continue at this rate in 40 years the cost will be 7% of global GDP. "There is little doubt left in the minds of scientists that we have entered the sixth Great Extinction, and that the losses are due to human factors," said Stavros Dimas, European Commissioner for the Environment. "Beyond the moral responsibility we have to protect our planet, the simple truth is that our future is inextricably tied to the fate of nature," he added.
The report points out that we have no way of measuring, monitoring and reporting natural capital, unlike economic and human capital and says we have only scratched the surface of what natural processes and genetic resources have to offer. In the future the value of nature and the services she provides, especially to poorer regions, must be measured and factored in by those in charge of deciding policy. The report is available at: www.teebweb.org
A major report says that much of the solution is to use and work with nature rather than just putting resources into expensive technology. The key joint EU-German global study, The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity, shows that it is essential to protect nature and that up to now we have failed to appreciate its value. For the first time the study has calculated the cost of using nature to clean drinking water as against building treatment plants; closing off and protecting fishing grounds; protecting areas of natural beauty. Eventually around one in every six jobs in Europe depends on the environment, or one in 40 if you take a narrow definition of such jobs based on organic farming, sustainable forestry and green forms of tourism. They show that controlling and adapting to climate change is closely linked to halting the loss of biodiversity.
For instance, the loss and damage to forests is responsible for around 20% of global CO2 – more than all forms of transport combined and points to the need for a halt to deforestation. On fisheries the study says that it is an underperforming asset in danger of collapse and is generating €34 billion less than it could. The study found that the benefit of protected areas under the EU’s Natura scheme is considerable. Species are becoming extinct at up to 1,000 times the normal rate so that more than half the earth’s ecosystem has been degraded in the past 50 years. Should this continue at this rate in 40 years the cost will be 7% of global GDP. "There is little doubt left in the minds of scientists that we have entered the sixth Great Extinction, and that the losses are due to human factors," said Stavros Dimas, European Commissioner for the Environment. "Beyond the moral responsibility we have to protect our planet, the simple truth is that our future is inextricably tied to the fate of nature," he added.
The report points out that we have no way of measuring, monitoring and reporting natural capital, unlike economic and human capital and says we have only scratched the surface of what natural processes and genetic resources have to offer. In the future the value of nature and the services she provides, especially to poorer regions, must be measured and factored in by those in charge of deciding policy. The report is available at: www.teebweb.org
Man's best friend, it turns out, is the planet's enemy.
Just what is the environmental impact of feeding the huge quantity of "companion" animals around the world?
A provocative new book titled ‘Time to Eat the Dog?’ examines how pets are bad for the planet. The book examined the ecological footprint of pet food outlining how pets consume vast amounts of precious resources, produce mountains of noxious waste – and they can be a disaster for wildlife as reported in Guardian newspaper and New Scientist
in a recent editorial entitled "Cute, fluffy and horribly greedy".
Just like us humans, the millions of domestic dogs and cats – as well as our collective menagerie of rabbits, horses, lizards, tropical fish et al – consume a wide variety of foodstuffs. In recent years, and despite the economic downturn, the pet food industry has witnessed a move towards "premium products", but the market is still dominated by products made with ingredients including "Hydrolysed feather meal", "derivatives of vegetable origin", "ash" and "animal derivatives" are just some of the delights routinely found in pet food.
The Real Guide to Sustainable Living has triggered a highly charged debate about the environmental efficacy of our pet-owning habits. If we are to examine the environmental impacts of all our lifestyle choices, the book argues, then we must also include pets in the discussion, no matter how unsettling the answers. The various environmental impacts attributed to the human food chain are well documented, so isn't it right, for example, that we should now be questioning the environmental impact of feeding domestic animals too?
The New Scientist article, largely agreed with the book's findings that some pets, due to the food they eat, have a surprisingly high "ecological footprint" (a way of quantifying human demand on the planet's ecosystems using a measure called "global hectares"). "According to the authors . . . it takes 0.84 hectares [2.07 acres] of land to keep a medium-sized dog fed. In contrast, running a 4.6-litre Toyota Land Cruiser, including the energy required to construct the thing and drive it 10,000km a year, requires 0.41 hectares. Dogs are not the only environmental sinners. The eco-footprint of a cat equates to that of a Volkswagen Golf. If that's troubling, there is an even more shocking comparison. In 2004, the average citizen of Vietnam had an ecological footprint of 0.76 hectares. For an Ethiopian, it was just 0.67 hectares. In a world where scarce resources are already hogged by the rich, can we really justify keeping pets that take more than some people?
When feeding a pet, however, the advice is to favour pet foods made from chicken and rabbit meat and avoid those containing red meat and fish which, by comparison, have a much higher environmental impact. Last and, perhaps, most obvious: the smaller the pet, the better.
A provocative new book titled ‘Time to Eat the Dog?’ examines how pets are bad for the planet. The book examined the ecological footprint of pet food outlining how pets consume vast amounts of precious resources, produce mountains of noxious waste – and they can be a disaster for wildlife as reported in Guardian newspaper and New Scientist
in a recent editorial entitled "Cute, fluffy and horribly greedy".
Just like us humans, the millions of domestic dogs and cats – as well as our collective menagerie of rabbits, horses, lizards, tropical fish et al – consume a wide variety of foodstuffs. In recent years, and despite the economic downturn, the pet food industry has witnessed a move towards "premium products", but the market is still dominated by products made with ingredients including "Hydrolysed feather meal", "derivatives of vegetable origin", "ash" and "animal derivatives" are just some of the delights routinely found in pet food.
The Real Guide to Sustainable Living has triggered a highly charged debate about the environmental efficacy of our pet-owning habits. If we are to examine the environmental impacts of all our lifestyle choices, the book argues, then we must also include pets in the discussion, no matter how unsettling the answers. The various environmental impacts attributed to the human food chain are well documented, so isn't it right, for example, that we should now be questioning the environmental impact of feeding domestic animals too?
The New Scientist article, largely agreed with the book's findings that some pets, due to the food they eat, have a surprisingly high "ecological footprint" (a way of quantifying human demand on the planet's ecosystems using a measure called "global hectares"). "According to the authors . . . it takes 0.84 hectares [2.07 acres] of land to keep a medium-sized dog fed. In contrast, running a 4.6-litre Toyota Land Cruiser, including the energy required to construct the thing and drive it 10,000km a year, requires 0.41 hectares. Dogs are not the only environmental sinners. The eco-footprint of a cat equates to that of a Volkswagen Golf. If that's troubling, there is an even more shocking comparison. In 2004, the average citizen of Vietnam had an ecological footprint of 0.76 hectares. For an Ethiopian, it was just 0.67 hectares. In a world where scarce resources are already hogged by the rich, can we really justify keeping pets that take more than some people?
When feeding a pet, however, the advice is to favour pet foods made from chicken and rabbit meat and avoid those containing red meat and fish which, by comparison, have a much higher environmental impact. Last and, perhaps, most obvious: the smaller the pet, the better.
The Anatomy of a silent crisis.
The following is an extract from a new report from the Global Humanitarian Forum on Climate Change.
Public surveys show that people worldwide are concerned about climate change. Science is now unequivocal as to the reality of climate change. Human activities, in particular emissions of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide are recognized as its principle cause. Nevertheless awareness about the impacts of climate change is low, particularly among the poor. In industrialized countries, climate change is still considered a solely environmental problem. It is seen as a distant threat that might affect our future. A viewpoint reinforced by pictures of glaciers and polar bears — not human beings
And yet Australia is witnessing a full decade of drought. Large tracts of the United States are exposed to stronger storms and severe water shortages — leading to crop loss, job loss, fires, and death. We testify here to the human face of this dangerous problem. The first hit and worst affected by climate change are the world’s poorest groups. Ninety-nine percent of all casualties occur in developing countries. A stark contrast to the one percent of global emissions attributable to some 50 of the least developed nations. If all countries were to pollute so little, there would be no climate change
The effects of pollution driven by economic growth in some parts of the world are now driving millions of people into poverty elsewhere. At the same time, decades-old aid pledges continue to go unmet. The Millennium Development Goals are endangered. And the poor lack capacity to make their voices heard in international arenas, or attract public and private investment. For those living on the brink of survival, climate change is a very real and dangerous hazard. For many, it is a final step of deprivation.
Where does a fisherman go when warmer sea temperatures deplete coral reefs and fish stocks? How can a small farmer keep animals or sow crops when the water dries up? Or families be provided for when fertile soils and freshwater are contaminated with salt from rising seas?
Climate change is an all encompassing threat, directly affecting the environment, the economy, health and safety. Many communities face multiple stresses with serious social, political and security implications, both domestically and abroad. Millions of people are uprooted or permanently on the move as a result. Many more millions will follow.
Even the most ambitious climate agreement will take years to slow or reverse global warming. A global carbon economy has been the basis of all productive efforts since centuries. Emissions are still steadily increasing, and the world population is set to grow by forty percent by 2050.
If we do not reverse current trends by close to 2020, however, we may have failed. Global warming will pass the widely acknowledged danger level of two degrees, since there is an approximately 20 year delay between emission reductions and the halting of their warming effect. This report clearly demonstrates that climate change is already highly dangerous at well below one degree of warming. Two degrees would be catastrophic.
Weak political leadership as evident today is all the more alarming then. It is not, however, surprising, since so few people are aware of just how much is at stake. That we are already this far into the most important negotiations ever for the future of this planet without a clear idea of the full impact of climate change on human society speaks volumes in itself. In this respect, I hope that the report will change political attitudes, spur public debate and more research.
Copenhagen needs to be the most ambitious international agreement ever negotiated. The alternative is mass starvation, mass migration, and mass sickness. If political leaders cannot assume responsibility for Copenhagen, they choose instead responsibility for failing humanity. In 2009, national leadership goes beyond the next elections, and far beyond national borders
We live in a global village and we each have a responsibility to protect our planet. Isn’t it logical and equitable, therefore, to insist that those who pollute have a duty to clean up? Pollution by some affects us all. Every one of us needs to understand that pollution has a cost, and this cost must be borne by the Polluter. Least responsible for greenhouse gas emissions are the world’s poorest communities who suffer most from climate change. This is fundamentally unjust. If efforts to build a global framework to address climate change are to succeed and endure they must be based on the principles of fairness and equity. People everywhere deserve climate justice. And everywhere people must stand up and demand exactly that from their representatives.
Climate change is a truly global issue. Its impacts, while skewed, are indiscriminate and threaten us all. People everywhere deserve not to suffer because of climate change. People everywhere deserve a future for their children. People everywhere deserve to have leaders who find the courage to achieve a solution to this crisis.
We must go beyond piecemeal changes to alter the very structure of the global economy. This will only be feasible if we manage to force a global price on carbon that is more representative of its costs to society, calculated at over 1 trillion dollars per year today according to this report’s findings. Taking these costs into account would redirect resources, exponentially multiplying possibilities for taking a greener path.
Indeed, that transformation is likely to prove the greatest opportunity for new economic growth since the advent of the industrial revolution. Renewable clean energy in particular would benefit the poor most, because of health, social and access reasons. It could also help springboard development: remembering, in particular, the 1.6 billion people on this planet who lack access to any modern forms of energy whatsoever.
When it comes to dealing with climate change, everybody must contribute according to their fair share of responsibility for the problem. No nation has the right to pollute. The role of this report is to document the greatest ongoing silent crisis of human history. When reading these pages it must not be forgotten that solutions exist: we can take preventative measures, we can adopt greener practices, and we can provide a dignified existence for all. We can contain climate change and end the suffering it causes.
But nobody can do it alone. Even if the United States or China — the world’s largest polluters in total emissions — were to stop polluting today, if others are not on board, climate change will continue to menace human society. Together, we can multiply the possibilities for overcoming it, and lessen the burden on everyone. But we must act now.
Humanity is facing a rare challenge. But it is a common challenge. There are no sides in the fight for climate justice.
Kofi A. Annan,
President of the Global Humanitarian Forum
Public surveys show that people worldwide are concerned about climate change. Science is now unequivocal as to the reality of climate change. Human activities, in particular emissions of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide are recognized as its principle cause. Nevertheless awareness about the impacts of climate change is low, particularly among the poor. In industrialized countries, climate change is still considered a solely environmental problem. It is seen as a distant threat that might affect our future. A viewpoint reinforced by pictures of glaciers and polar bears — not human beings
And yet Australia is witnessing a full decade of drought. Large tracts of the United States are exposed to stronger storms and severe water shortages — leading to crop loss, job loss, fires, and death. We testify here to the human face of this dangerous problem. The first hit and worst affected by climate change are the world’s poorest groups. Ninety-nine percent of all casualties occur in developing countries. A stark contrast to the one percent of global emissions attributable to some 50 of the least developed nations. If all countries were to pollute so little, there would be no climate change
The effects of pollution driven by economic growth in some parts of the world are now driving millions of people into poverty elsewhere. At the same time, decades-old aid pledges continue to go unmet. The Millennium Development Goals are endangered. And the poor lack capacity to make their voices heard in international arenas, or attract public and private investment. For those living on the brink of survival, climate change is a very real and dangerous hazard. For many, it is a final step of deprivation.
Where does a fisherman go when warmer sea temperatures deplete coral reefs and fish stocks? How can a small farmer keep animals or sow crops when the water dries up? Or families be provided for when fertile soils and freshwater are contaminated with salt from rising seas?
Climate change is an all encompassing threat, directly affecting the environment, the economy, health and safety. Many communities face multiple stresses with serious social, political and security implications, both domestically and abroad. Millions of people are uprooted or permanently on the move as a result. Many more millions will follow.
Even the most ambitious climate agreement will take years to slow or reverse global warming. A global carbon economy has been the basis of all productive efforts since centuries. Emissions are still steadily increasing, and the world population is set to grow by forty percent by 2050.
If we do not reverse current trends by close to 2020, however, we may have failed. Global warming will pass the widely acknowledged danger level of two degrees, since there is an approximately 20 year delay between emission reductions and the halting of their warming effect. This report clearly demonstrates that climate change is already highly dangerous at well below one degree of warming. Two degrees would be catastrophic.
Weak political leadership as evident today is all the more alarming then. It is not, however, surprising, since so few people are aware of just how much is at stake. That we are already this far into the most important negotiations ever for the future of this planet without a clear idea of the full impact of climate change on human society speaks volumes in itself. In this respect, I hope that the report will change political attitudes, spur public debate and more research.
Copenhagen needs to be the most ambitious international agreement ever negotiated. The alternative is mass starvation, mass migration, and mass sickness. If political leaders cannot assume responsibility for Copenhagen, they choose instead responsibility for failing humanity. In 2009, national leadership goes beyond the next elections, and far beyond national borders
We live in a global village and we each have a responsibility to protect our planet. Isn’t it logical and equitable, therefore, to insist that those who pollute have a duty to clean up? Pollution by some affects us all. Every one of us needs to understand that pollution has a cost, and this cost must be borne by the Polluter. Least responsible for greenhouse gas emissions are the world’s poorest communities who suffer most from climate change. This is fundamentally unjust. If efforts to build a global framework to address climate change are to succeed and endure they must be based on the principles of fairness and equity. People everywhere deserve climate justice. And everywhere people must stand up and demand exactly that from their representatives.
Climate change is a truly global issue. Its impacts, while skewed, are indiscriminate and threaten us all. People everywhere deserve not to suffer because of climate change. People everywhere deserve a future for their children. People everywhere deserve to have leaders who find the courage to achieve a solution to this crisis.
We must go beyond piecemeal changes to alter the very structure of the global economy. This will only be feasible if we manage to force a global price on carbon that is more representative of its costs to society, calculated at over 1 trillion dollars per year today according to this report’s findings. Taking these costs into account would redirect resources, exponentially multiplying possibilities for taking a greener path.
Indeed, that transformation is likely to prove the greatest opportunity for new economic growth since the advent of the industrial revolution. Renewable clean energy in particular would benefit the poor most, because of health, social and access reasons. It could also help springboard development: remembering, in particular, the 1.6 billion people on this planet who lack access to any modern forms of energy whatsoever.
When it comes to dealing with climate change, everybody must contribute according to their fair share of responsibility for the problem. No nation has the right to pollute. The role of this report is to document the greatest ongoing silent crisis of human history. When reading these pages it must not be forgotten that solutions exist: we can take preventative measures, we can adopt greener practices, and we can provide a dignified existence for all. We can contain climate change and end the suffering it causes.
But nobody can do it alone. Even if the United States or China — the world’s largest polluters in total emissions — were to stop polluting today, if others are not on board, climate change will continue to menace human society. Together, we can multiply the possibilities for overcoming it, and lessen the burden on everyone. But we must act now.
Humanity is facing a rare challenge. But it is a common challenge. There are no sides in the fight for climate justice.
Kofi A. Annan,
President of the Global Humanitarian Forum
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Cork Environmental Forum Award for Individual Contribution to Environment
Declan Waugh, chartered environmentalist and environmental scientist was honoured at the 2008 Cork Environmental Forum awards ceremony, which was held in December. Declan, who lives in Bandon but hails from Skibbereen, received the award for outstanding individual contribution to the environment for 2008 for his work in Climate Change.
Senator Dan Boyle, in addressing those at the ceremony, spoke of the significance of the Partnership for Change initiative established by Declan in 2008 and the hugely successful international conference which he organised for Cork City, which included some of the most renowned and acclaimed scientific experts in the world on climate change.
Michael Hobbs of the Cork Environmental Forum nominated Declan for his outstanding achievement in organising the exceptional climate change conference and said that the work undertaken by Declan, which was entirely on a voluntary basis was equal to that of ten people. In addition to organising the conference Declan procured sponsorship for secondary school students from twenty schools in Cork county and city to attend the conference. Pupils from schools in Bandon and Clonakilty were included. Moreover, one hundred university students from eight third level colleges across Ireland also participated under the sponsorship programme. Declan also visited secondary schools across West Cork to give educational climate change presentations to students during the year.
On receiving the award Declan stated “that one of my interests outside of the environment is history and photography and that each of the 31 speakers who contributed to the conference received framed photographic prints of historical sites in West |Cork”. He mentioned how the world’s most distinguished climate scientist Dr James Hansen, Director of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, had contacted him to say that the only picture hanging in his personal study is the one presented to him of West Cork from Partnership for Change. Declan remarked that “when one reflects on the history of the past two centuries what stands out for me is that in the 19th century humanity managed to remove the shackles of slavery, in the 20th century humanity removed the shackles of colonialism and how now in the 21st century we are at the centre of the greatest challenge facing humanity, one that requires us to remove the shackles of excess consumerism and unsustainable development ”. Declan also noted how “in the last century the world faced three World Wars: World War One, the Second World War and the Cold War, and how this century we face another world war, one of truly global scale, where each of us individually must wage war with ourselves and our unsustainable lifestyles. This personal battle will decide the future of humanity.”
Declan accepted the award on behalf of all speakers who gave freely of their time to the Climate Change Conference and in particular on behalf of the students and delegates who attended the event. The award, he believes, recognises the unique initiative of Partnership for Change, how we can dare to hope that humanity can tackle climate change and in doing so, provide humanity with a different future. In closing Declan noted that at this historic and exciting moment, society needs strong political leadership and in part a new generation of politicians motivated by sustainable development to help solve the ecological crisis we now face.
Presentations given at the conference including recorded video presentations are now available to download and view at www. partnershipforchange.ie
Senator Dan Boyle, in addressing those at the ceremony, spoke of the significance of the Partnership for Change initiative established by Declan in 2008 and the hugely successful international conference which he organised for Cork City, which included some of the most renowned and acclaimed scientific experts in the world on climate change.
Michael Hobbs of the Cork Environmental Forum nominated Declan for his outstanding achievement in organising the exceptional climate change conference and said that the work undertaken by Declan, which was entirely on a voluntary basis was equal to that of ten people. In addition to organising the conference Declan procured sponsorship for secondary school students from twenty schools in Cork county and city to attend the conference. Pupils from schools in Bandon and Clonakilty were included. Moreover, one hundred university students from eight third level colleges across Ireland also participated under the sponsorship programme. Declan also visited secondary schools across West Cork to give educational climate change presentations to students during the year.
On receiving the award Declan stated “that one of my interests outside of the environment is history and photography and that each of the 31 speakers who contributed to the conference received framed photographic prints of historical sites in West |Cork”. He mentioned how the world’s most distinguished climate scientist Dr James Hansen, Director of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, had contacted him to say that the only picture hanging in his personal study is the one presented to him of West Cork from Partnership for Change. Declan remarked that “when one reflects on the history of the past two centuries what stands out for me is that in the 19th century humanity managed to remove the shackles of slavery, in the 20th century humanity removed the shackles of colonialism and how now in the 21st century we are at the centre of the greatest challenge facing humanity, one that requires us to remove the shackles of excess consumerism and unsustainable development ”. Declan also noted how “in the last century the world faced three World Wars: World War One, the Second World War and the Cold War, and how this century we face another world war, one of truly global scale, where each of us individually must wage war with ourselves and our unsustainable lifestyles. This personal battle will decide the future of humanity.”
Declan accepted the award on behalf of all speakers who gave freely of their time to the Climate Change Conference and in particular on behalf of the students and delegates who attended the event. The award, he believes, recognises the unique initiative of Partnership for Change, how we can dare to hope that humanity can tackle climate change and in doing so, provide humanity with a different future. In closing Declan noted that at this historic and exciting moment, society needs strong political leadership and in part a new generation of politicians motivated by sustainable development to help solve the ecological crisis we now face.
Presentations given at the conference including recorded video presentations are now available to download and view at www. partnershipforchange.ie
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Eco-Light Bulbs and the Environment
There is no doubt about it but the debate on energy saving light bulbs and Green politics certainly seems to lead to much ranting and raving.
Unless we have sound and accurate debate based on scientific and economic facts such tasteless and absurd hyperbole as noted in the ARCHON article last week will drag us all back to the stone age.
We all create our own reality, however, the ignorant and absurd comments of last week, show not only a lack of comprehension of the current economic crisis, the impacts of which are so enormous it is difficult to comprehend, but also a total lack of understanding of science resulting in a hysterial and misinformed article not worthy of publication.
As a member of the Institute of Energy and Chartered Environmentalist I feel duty bound to respond to these comments.
There are a number of problems with this article; not least that the Green party has lost all credibility, abandoned its guiding principles, the Programme for Government and so on, but also that Minister John Gormley's endeavors to ban traditional lights bulbs were not a good idea. Also, bizarrely, ARCHON states that eco light bulbs contain dangerous levels of mercury and damage health!
While to some it may sem trivial to talk about light bulbs, the reality is that lighting accounts for a significant portion of Ireland's electricity use and represents one of the quickest and simplest ways of saving energy. Across Europe, wasteful lightbulbs keep the equivalent of 10 large power stations pumping out up to 50m tonnes of CO2 each year. Given the repeated failure of Ireland to reduce its carbon emissions, the decision to ban incandescent lightbulbs is, in fact, a vital step.
Secondly, energy efficient bulbs will save you money. Each Compact Fluorescent Lamp (CFL) bulb lasts between 6 and 15 times longer than a traditional incandescent bulb. This is because normal bulbs only convert around 5% of the electricity into light while the equivalent figure for CFLs is 20%. A CFL bulb will save you around €8 per year, so even though they are typically more expensive than the old technology, they pay for themselves quickly though efficiency and longevity. If your entire house is fitted with CFL bulbs - and the average home in Ireland has 26 light bulbs - you will save €700 on your lighting bill over the course of the bulb's lifetime.
Thirdly, energy saving Light Bulbs will reduce environmental pollution. The fact that energy-saving lighting contains trace levels of mercury will not bring new environmental problems rather net mercury emissions related to lighting will be reduced by more than 50%, as fewer kilowatt hours of electricity will need to be produced in coal-fired power plants, which emit a relatively high percentage of the substance through their chimneys. It is important to note that the extra coal - a major source of mercury pollution - that is burned in order to light an older incandescent bulb, leads to roughly three times more mercury being released into the atmosphere compared to a CFL bulb.
Fourthly, banning traditional light bulbs will reduce greenhouse gas emission and help tackle climate change. The International Energy Agency staggering figures speak for themselves, globally lighting currently consumes more electricity than is produced by either hydro or nuclear power and results in CO2 emissions equivalent to about 70% of the world's cars. A single low-energy bulb in normal use saves 111 kilos of carbon dioxide annually. Banning old-fashioned lightbulbs across the whole of the EU would cut carbon emissions by about 20 million tonnes a year - and save between 5 and 8 billion euros a year in domestic fuel bills. Is this not good for the consumer, not to mention the environment ?
Fifthly, Ireland is not alone in attempting to ban the old-fashioned light bulb with policies being introduced in California, Canada, Austrialia and Central America. In fact, Prime Minister Gordon Brown has said he wants to see the UK to be one of the first countries to phase out inefficient light bulbs. Also, in the UK supermarkets voluntarily decided to stop replacing their existing stock of 100W lightbulbs after New Year's Day 2009.
Despite the best efforts of the majority of the world's scientists, ARCHON has somehow managed to remain totally oblivious to, or unconcerned by, the hidden financial costs and environmental harm associated with keeping tens of millions of wasteful incandescent lightbulbs alight. Who would have thought that something as mundane as a humble lightbulb would trigger such an outpouring of ill informed journalism? It would seem to be no more than a desperate attempt to whip up a political frenzy over the fact that the public, according to the most recent political survey, believe that the Green Party are acknowledged as a proactive party in Government!
I sincerely hope that the Minister's attempt to ban traditional light bulbs will provide a firm launch pad for all the other, much bigger, improvements that the Green Ministers introduce in the years ahead; improvements that will save the taxpayer money and help the environment. Meanwhile, ARCHON will write smugly about how the Green Party is incoherently bellowing their message. What the author obviously has failed to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath us, that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long, are outdated and that we need to move forward. Suggesting that the party has abandoned its guiding principles is nonsense. For me, it is indeed a healthy sign of any political party that members are willing to resign. Unfortunatley there are too many political parties in this country whoes members from former Taoisigh to elected councillors refuse to resign regardless of principles, justice or moral integrity.
Finally, it appears that political parties in opposition and commentators will attempt to find any and every opportunity to discredit the Green Party. As a small political party operating in Government as a junior partner for the first time in their history and during the most turbulent of ecomomic times, they are managing their respective Departments well and providing new vision and political leadership.
While some wish to say that Bus Éireann cuts are the responsibility of the Green Party, this is a matter for the Minister for Transport. In our present econonomic reality Bus Eireann has seen a sharp decline in passenger numbers as employment has decreased, emigrants return home and consumer spending reduces. Passenger journeys fell by 4 to 5 per cent last year and the company recorded an operating loss of €10 million in 2008 with further decreases expected and projected losses of €30m this year.
Faced with such financial losses any company has no option but to move forward in whatever way they can and minimize further financial losses while securing employment as much as possible. In the private sector, such an operator would cease trading and go into bankruptcy.
What ARCHON appears to support is more public money pumped into a system that is shown not to be working rather than moving forward and adapting the bus service to current demands. In reality what we are talking about is a 10 per cent reduction in staff and the fleet, amounting to 120 vehicles being taken from the Dublin Bus fleet of 1,182 vehicles. This is indeed unfortunate but it is also a failure of successive Governments to invest in sustainable public transport and the public themselves who prefer to travel by private car rather than take public transport even when such options are readily available. This is something that the Green Party has been bellowing about for two decades.
Unless we have sound and accurate debate based on scientific and economic facts such tasteless and absurd hyperbole as noted in the ARCHON article last week will drag us all back to the stone age.
We all create our own reality, however, the ignorant and absurd comments of last week, show not only a lack of comprehension of the current economic crisis, the impacts of which are so enormous it is difficult to comprehend, but also a total lack of understanding of science resulting in a hysterial and misinformed article not worthy of publication.
As a member of the Institute of Energy and Chartered Environmentalist I feel duty bound to respond to these comments.
There are a number of problems with this article; not least that the Green party has lost all credibility, abandoned its guiding principles, the Programme for Government and so on, but also that Minister John Gormley's endeavors to ban traditional lights bulbs were not a good idea. Also, bizarrely, ARCHON states that eco light bulbs contain dangerous levels of mercury and damage health!
While to some it may sem trivial to talk about light bulbs, the reality is that lighting accounts for a significant portion of Ireland's electricity use and represents one of the quickest and simplest ways of saving energy. Across Europe, wasteful lightbulbs keep the equivalent of 10 large power stations pumping out up to 50m tonnes of CO2 each year. Given the repeated failure of Ireland to reduce its carbon emissions, the decision to ban incandescent lightbulbs is, in fact, a vital step.
Secondly, energy efficient bulbs will save you money. Each Compact Fluorescent Lamp (CFL) bulb lasts between 6 and 15 times longer than a traditional incandescent bulb. This is because normal bulbs only convert around 5% of the electricity into light while the equivalent figure for CFLs is 20%. A CFL bulb will save you around €8 per year, so even though they are typically more expensive than the old technology, they pay for themselves quickly though efficiency and longevity. If your entire house is fitted with CFL bulbs - and the average home in Ireland has 26 light bulbs - you will save €700 on your lighting bill over the course of the bulb's lifetime.
Thirdly, energy saving Light Bulbs will reduce environmental pollution. The fact that energy-saving lighting contains trace levels of mercury will not bring new environmental problems rather net mercury emissions related to lighting will be reduced by more than 50%, as fewer kilowatt hours of electricity will need to be produced in coal-fired power plants, which emit a relatively high percentage of the substance through their chimneys. It is important to note that the extra coal - a major source of mercury pollution - that is burned in order to light an older incandescent bulb, leads to roughly three times more mercury being released into the atmosphere compared to a CFL bulb.
Fourthly, banning traditional light bulbs will reduce greenhouse gas emission and help tackle climate change. The International Energy Agency staggering figures speak for themselves, globally lighting currently consumes more electricity than is produced by either hydro or nuclear power and results in CO2 emissions equivalent to about 70% of the world's cars. A single low-energy bulb in normal use saves 111 kilos of carbon dioxide annually. Banning old-fashioned lightbulbs across the whole of the EU would cut carbon emissions by about 20 million tonnes a year - and save between 5 and 8 billion euros a year in domestic fuel bills. Is this not good for the consumer, not to mention the environment ?
Fifthly, Ireland is not alone in attempting to ban the old-fashioned light bulb with policies being introduced in California, Canada, Austrialia and Central America. In fact, Prime Minister Gordon Brown has said he wants to see the UK to be one of the first countries to phase out inefficient light bulbs. Also, in the UK supermarkets voluntarily decided to stop replacing their existing stock of 100W lightbulbs after New Year's Day 2009.
Despite the best efforts of the majority of the world's scientists, ARCHON has somehow managed to remain totally oblivious to, or unconcerned by, the hidden financial costs and environmental harm associated with keeping tens of millions of wasteful incandescent lightbulbs alight. Who would have thought that something as mundane as a humble lightbulb would trigger such an outpouring of ill informed journalism? It would seem to be no more than a desperate attempt to whip up a political frenzy over the fact that the public, according to the most recent political survey, believe that the Green Party are acknowledged as a proactive party in Government!
I sincerely hope that the Minister's attempt to ban traditional light bulbs will provide a firm launch pad for all the other, much bigger, improvements that the Green Ministers introduce in the years ahead; improvements that will save the taxpayer money and help the environment. Meanwhile, ARCHON will write smugly about how the Green Party is incoherently bellowing their message. What the author obviously has failed to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath us, that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long, are outdated and that we need to move forward. Suggesting that the party has abandoned its guiding principles is nonsense. For me, it is indeed a healthy sign of any political party that members are willing to resign. Unfortunatley there are too many political parties in this country whoes members from former Taoisigh to elected councillors refuse to resign regardless of principles, justice or moral integrity.
Finally, it appears that political parties in opposition and commentators will attempt to find any and every opportunity to discredit the Green Party. As a small political party operating in Government as a junior partner for the first time in their history and during the most turbulent of ecomomic times, they are managing their respective Departments well and providing new vision and political leadership.
While some wish to say that Bus Éireann cuts are the responsibility of the Green Party, this is a matter for the Minister for Transport. In our present econonomic reality Bus Eireann has seen a sharp decline in passenger numbers as employment has decreased, emigrants return home and consumer spending reduces. Passenger journeys fell by 4 to 5 per cent last year and the company recorded an operating loss of €10 million in 2008 with further decreases expected and projected losses of €30m this year.
Faced with such financial losses any company has no option but to move forward in whatever way they can and minimize further financial losses while securing employment as much as possible. In the private sector, such an operator would cease trading and go into bankruptcy.
What ARCHON appears to support is more public money pumped into a system that is shown not to be working rather than moving forward and adapting the bus service to current demands. In reality what we are talking about is a 10 per cent reduction in staff and the fleet, amounting to 120 vehicles being taken from the Dublin Bus fleet of 1,182 vehicles. This is indeed unfortunate but it is also a failure of successive Governments to invest in sustainable public transport and the public themselves who prefer to travel by private car rather than take public transport even when such options are readily available. This is something that the Green Party has been bellowing about for two decades.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Lighting up the lives of the poorest communities
Partnership for Change a non profit climate change education and sustainable development organization established by West Cork based Environmental Scientist Declan Waugh is delighted to announce sponsorship of a innovative community sustainable development and climate change initiative in India. This is the third sponsorship programme supported by Partnership for Change this year. Given the current financial climate support for development, humanitarian and emergency relief organizations working in developing countries with the poorest of communities is more critical than ever. Declan organized a major climate change conference in Cork last November sponsored by EnviroManagement Services and Bord Gáis. Through this conference Declan was able to bring together some of the worlds leading experts on climate change, international aid, leading business sectors and professional institutions, national politicians and the wider community to address what is the greatest challenge facing humanity, climate change. Partnership for Change organized sponsorship from leading companies for 150 students from twenty secondary schools and eight universities across Ireland to attend the conference.
Over 1.6 billion people in the world lack access to electricity; roughly 25% are in India alone. For these people, life comes to a standstill after dusk. Inadequate lighting is not only an impediment to progress and development opportunities, but also has a direct impact on the health, environment, and safety of millions of people, as they are forced to light their homes with kerosene lamps, dung cakes, firewood, and crop residue after sunset.
The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) with its vision to work for global sustainable development and its commitment towards creating innovative solutions for a better tomorrow, has undertaken an initiative of 'Lighting a Billion Lives’ (LaBL) through the use of solar lighting devices. LaBL is promoting solar lanterns developed by the institute, which provide better illumination and also eliminate the health problems associated with kerosene lanterns. Using them would also mean mitigating the 5.9 million tonnes of CO2 emitted from kerosene lanterns annually. The campaign is reaching across nine countries. Besides India, it’s going to Pakistan, Ethiopia, Malawi, Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar and aims to bring light into the lives of one billion rural people by replacing the kerosene and paraffin lanterns with solar lighting devices. This will facilitate education of children; provide better illumination and kerosene-smoke-free indoor environment for women to do household chores; and provide opportunities for livelihoods both at the individual level and at village level.
Through this Campaign, local entrepreneur-driven delivery channels are created for distribution and servicing of solar lanterns to rural communities, for whom kerosene is the predominant fuel for lighting—not only in households but also in small enterprises such as shops, local bazaars, tuition and coaching centres, and cottage industries.
The LaBL campaign offers a solution to the problems of the rural people in a sustainable manner created local capacities and network to assemble, sell, and service solar devices and develop entrepreneurial skills. The campaign encourages and supports women solar power entrepreneurs, creating sustainable sales and service networks in villages, which have large unmet demand for solar lighting systems; and empowering women by giving them economic freedom.
Women in the community are taught to assemble various products like LED night lamps, DC mobile chargers, homelighting systems, and solar lanterns. They learnt how to install, operate, and maintain the technology including operating a central solar lantern charging/distribution centre where lanterns are rented. They also learn business skills to enable them to market the products. Apart from the financial independence, a sense of pride arising from the newly acquired skill and confidence is one of the biggest contributions of the project.
According to Dr R K Pachauri, Chairperson of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Director General of the TERI Institute“LaBL is not merely a campaign. It is a solution, a solution to the utmost need of life, which is light. It provides a solution to the global crisis in the form of a humble solar lantern, which harnesses solar energy and proves to be a clean lighting source to rural communities.”
The Campaign uses solar lanterns that have CFLs (compact fluorescent lamps) as well as LEDs (light emitting diodes) for dual purposes. While CFL provides bright illumination for tasks such as studying and cooking; LEDs provide general low-level illumination during the whole night.
The Campaign offers local and global environmental benefits. These communities use kerosene as the lighting option, which is hazardous to the environment and health. Each solar lantern The solar lantern provided by LaBL mitigates these harmful effects by saving about 3–4 litres of kerosene every month per household. This would translate into savings of 40–50 litres of kerosene every year. Each solar lantern in its useful life of 10 years is capable of mitigating 1.5 tonnes of CO2.
In recognition of their inspiring work while supporting sustainable development in the poorest of communities and by providing environmental solutions to tackling climate change Declan Waugh, Chairman of Partnership for Change is delighted to announce sponsorship through the light a billion lives campaign (LaBL) of an entire community renewable energy project, including capacity building, and training of NGO and entrepreneur, and Campaign outreach. Receiving the contribution, Ms. Akanksha Chaurey, Director TERI said, “The massive task of providing light to millions across nine countries cannot be possible without active support from the civil society, governments, corporate and other agencies. We are grateful to Declan and Partnership for Change for channeling the funds raised during the conference towards LaBL. Our endeavour is to help those who have no access to electricity and provide them solar lanterns to improve their economic and social lives”
Partnership for Change is able to offer this financial support and sponsorship as Declan continues to work voluntary for the organization. Any proceeds remaining from the Climate Change conference have been donated by Declan to organizations that inspire change, social justice and responsibility, humanitarian relief & sustainable development in the poorest of communities. The other worthy organizations that obtained significant donations from Partnership for Change include WaterAid and Medicines Sans Frontiers/Doctors Without Borders (MSF).
While donating the cheque, Declan Waugh, Chairman of PFC said, “It is indeed a pleasure to be supporting such a worthy cause. LaBL campaign is not yet known to many around the globe. Through this donation we are supporting sustainable development by providing innovative solutions to the poorest communities, while also having a direct impact on human health and the environment. Currently, the campaign has reached 45 villages in various states of India and parts of Myanmar and implementation in another 100 villages is in progress. This donation supports their tremendous work.”
Over 1.6 billion people in the world lack access to electricity; roughly 25% are in India alone. For these people, life comes to a standstill after dusk. Inadequate lighting is not only an impediment to progress and development opportunities, but also has a direct impact on the health, environment, and safety of millions of people, as they are forced to light their homes with kerosene lamps, dung cakes, firewood, and crop residue after sunset.
The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) with its vision to work for global sustainable development and its commitment towards creating innovative solutions for a better tomorrow, has undertaken an initiative of 'Lighting a Billion Lives’ (LaBL) through the use of solar lighting devices. LaBL is promoting solar lanterns developed by the institute, which provide better illumination and also eliminate the health problems associated with kerosene lanterns. Using them would also mean mitigating the 5.9 million tonnes of CO2 emitted from kerosene lanterns annually. The campaign is reaching across nine countries. Besides India, it’s going to Pakistan, Ethiopia, Malawi, Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar and aims to bring light into the lives of one billion rural people by replacing the kerosene and paraffin lanterns with solar lighting devices. This will facilitate education of children; provide better illumination and kerosene-smoke-free indoor environment for women to do household chores; and provide opportunities for livelihoods both at the individual level and at village level.
Through this Campaign, local entrepreneur-driven delivery channels are created for distribution and servicing of solar lanterns to rural communities, for whom kerosene is the predominant fuel for lighting—not only in households but also in small enterprises such as shops, local bazaars, tuition and coaching centres, and cottage industries.
The LaBL campaign offers a solution to the problems of the rural people in a sustainable manner created local capacities and network to assemble, sell, and service solar devices and develop entrepreneurial skills. The campaign encourages and supports women solar power entrepreneurs, creating sustainable sales and service networks in villages, which have large unmet demand for solar lighting systems; and empowering women by giving them economic freedom.
Women in the community are taught to assemble various products like LED night lamps, DC mobile chargers, homelighting systems, and solar lanterns. They learnt how to install, operate, and maintain the technology including operating a central solar lantern charging/distribution centre where lanterns are rented. They also learn business skills to enable them to market the products. Apart from the financial independence, a sense of pride arising from the newly acquired skill and confidence is one of the biggest contributions of the project.
According to Dr R K Pachauri, Chairperson of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Director General of the TERI Institute“LaBL is not merely a campaign. It is a solution, a solution to the utmost need of life, which is light. It provides a solution to the global crisis in the form of a humble solar lantern, which harnesses solar energy and proves to be a clean lighting source to rural communities.”
The Campaign uses solar lanterns that have CFLs (compact fluorescent lamps) as well as LEDs (light emitting diodes) for dual purposes. While CFL provides bright illumination for tasks such as studying and cooking; LEDs provide general low-level illumination during the whole night.
The Campaign offers local and global environmental benefits. These communities use kerosene as the lighting option, which is hazardous to the environment and health. Each solar lantern The solar lantern provided by LaBL mitigates these harmful effects by saving about 3–4 litres of kerosene every month per household. This would translate into savings of 40–50 litres of kerosene every year. Each solar lantern in its useful life of 10 years is capable of mitigating 1.5 tonnes of CO2.
In recognition of their inspiring work while supporting sustainable development in the poorest of communities and by providing environmental solutions to tackling climate change Declan Waugh, Chairman of Partnership for Change is delighted to announce sponsorship through the light a billion lives campaign (LaBL) of an entire community renewable energy project, including capacity building, and training of NGO and entrepreneur, and Campaign outreach. Receiving the contribution, Ms. Akanksha Chaurey, Director TERI said, “The massive task of providing light to millions across nine countries cannot be possible without active support from the civil society, governments, corporate and other agencies. We are grateful to Declan and Partnership for Change for channeling the funds raised during the conference towards LaBL. Our endeavour is to help those who have no access to electricity and provide them solar lanterns to improve their economic and social lives”
Partnership for Change is able to offer this financial support and sponsorship as Declan continues to work voluntary for the organization. Any proceeds remaining from the Climate Change conference have been donated by Declan to organizations that inspire change, social justice and responsibility, humanitarian relief & sustainable development in the poorest of communities. The other worthy organizations that obtained significant donations from Partnership for Change include WaterAid and Medicines Sans Frontiers/Doctors Without Borders (MSF).
While donating the cheque, Declan Waugh, Chairman of PFC said, “It is indeed a pleasure to be supporting such a worthy cause. LaBL campaign is not yet known to many around the globe. Through this donation we are supporting sustainable development by providing innovative solutions to the poorest communities, while also having a direct impact on human health and the environment. Currently, the campaign has reached 45 villages in various states of India and parts of Myanmar and implementation in another 100 villages is in progress. This donation supports their tremendous work.”
Who sets policy and who do they represent. Let the public voice be heard
I read an interesting article in New Scientist the other morning. It was titled "leave education to the experts", I thought that it resonated with a lot of what I have believed for many years regarding local government.
When we examine what were the various factors that lead to the current financial crisis in Ireland one of the first stages of the disease started with how we managed planning and development.
What we had were in essence elected officials throughout the land that were acting on behalf of developers, zoning large areas of land for development without the slightest thought for sustainable development or its community. It was about greed, profit for the few to build as much houses as possible on the smallest piece of land, building on floodplain's or miles outside of towns or huge estates alongside tiny villages. In West Cork we even had the idea supported by some to build an entire new town in a rural area with no infrastructure on ground that was subject to flooding, at Annaghmore outside Inishannon.
The latter is only recent history, barely a year ago this was what 23 of our elected County Councilors recommended. This brings me back to the article in New Scientist which examined science education and who sets education policies. Certain powerful factions in the US do not want evolutionary science taught in schools, instead they want creationism science taught, one that believes that the earth is only a few thousand years old and evolution does not exist.
In certain parts of the US elected officials were making decisions not based on who they represented but acting on behalf of lobby groups that supported their campaign. What is clearly needed the article suggested is elected officials who have expertise or credentials in the relevant areas that they are working in and can make decisions based on sound professional judgment for the public good.
When we consider again the Annaghmore debacle, we must reflect on who the 23 elected officials who supported the project represented. They didn't represent the County Council, who said that the development was not in the best interest of sustainable development; they didn't listen to the planning professionals within the County Council or the County Manager. They previously supported the Cork Area Strategic Development Plan (CASP) 2001-2020 which was adopted by Cork County Council and Cork City Council, yet they obviously didn’t read it as this proposed development overturned the recommendations and objectives for development in the County till 2020.
One must consider therefore why would so many elected councilors decide to change the strategy for planning and development for Cork, in clear opposition to the public body and planning Authority they represent and the communities in which they live?
Did these same elected officials have the science, land-use, planning, engineering or professional skills necessary to attempt to overturn development plans?
Did they listen to their own communities, like the people in Inishannon, Bandon, Kinsale, Enniskeane, Clonakilty, Dunmanway or any of the other towns in West Cork that would have been impacted negatively by this outrageous proposal?
Who therefore did they represent? Why would public representatives agree to a proposal for a new town on the outskirts of west cork when the region has so many new uninhabited dwellings lying vacant throughout towns and villages in west cork. Why would any public representative representing these towns even consider that such a proposal would be good the for established communities which they represent. Many local businesses which are the backbone of many communities are suffering serious financial difficulties with increased competition from low cost multinationals and the economic downturn. The idea of building a new town approaching West Cork in such a location was not only outrageous but absurd and irresponsible. Those that supported the idea should be brought to task.
In a few weeks time, many of these officials will come knocking on your door, looking for your vote. It is evident that some of these officials represent what is at the core of the crisis we now face in this country. Its time we let people who have the necessary skills and credentials to manage our affairs. We have had enough of officials who support decisions make by lobby groups or powerful wealthy supporters. What we need now are officials who act on behalf of the community with the skills and experience to restore confidence in Local Government.
When we examine what were the various factors that lead to the current financial crisis in Ireland one of the first stages of the disease started with how we managed planning and development.
What we had were in essence elected officials throughout the land that were acting on behalf of developers, zoning large areas of land for development without the slightest thought for sustainable development or its community. It was about greed, profit for the few to build as much houses as possible on the smallest piece of land, building on floodplain's or miles outside of towns or huge estates alongside tiny villages. In West Cork we even had the idea supported by some to build an entire new town in a rural area with no infrastructure on ground that was subject to flooding, at Annaghmore outside Inishannon.
The latter is only recent history, barely a year ago this was what 23 of our elected County Councilors recommended. This brings me back to the article in New Scientist which examined science education and who sets education policies. Certain powerful factions in the US do not want evolutionary science taught in schools, instead they want creationism science taught, one that believes that the earth is only a few thousand years old and evolution does not exist.
In certain parts of the US elected officials were making decisions not based on who they represented but acting on behalf of lobby groups that supported their campaign. What is clearly needed the article suggested is elected officials who have expertise or credentials in the relevant areas that they are working in and can make decisions based on sound professional judgment for the public good.
When we consider again the Annaghmore debacle, we must reflect on who the 23 elected officials who supported the project represented. They didn't represent the County Council, who said that the development was not in the best interest of sustainable development; they didn't listen to the planning professionals within the County Council or the County Manager. They previously supported the Cork Area Strategic Development Plan (CASP) 2001-2020 which was adopted by Cork County Council and Cork City Council, yet they obviously didn’t read it as this proposed development overturned the recommendations and objectives for development in the County till 2020.
One must consider therefore why would so many elected councilors decide to change the strategy for planning and development for Cork, in clear opposition to the public body and planning Authority they represent and the communities in which they live?
Did these same elected officials have the science, land-use, planning, engineering or professional skills necessary to attempt to overturn development plans?
Did they listen to their own communities, like the people in Inishannon, Bandon, Kinsale, Enniskeane, Clonakilty, Dunmanway or any of the other towns in West Cork that would have been impacted negatively by this outrageous proposal?
Who therefore did they represent? Why would public representatives agree to a proposal for a new town on the outskirts of west cork when the region has so many new uninhabited dwellings lying vacant throughout towns and villages in west cork. Why would any public representative representing these towns even consider that such a proposal would be good the for established communities which they represent. Many local businesses which are the backbone of many communities are suffering serious financial difficulties with increased competition from low cost multinationals and the economic downturn. The idea of building a new town approaching West Cork in such a location was not only outrageous but absurd and irresponsible. Those that supported the idea should be brought to task.
In a few weeks time, many of these officials will come knocking on your door, looking for your vote. It is evident that some of these officials represent what is at the core of the crisis we now face in this country. Its time we let people who have the necessary skills and credentials to manage our affairs. We have had enough of officials who support decisions make by lobby groups or powerful wealthy supporters. What we need now are officials who act on behalf of the community with the skills and experience to restore confidence in Local Government.
Sustainable Challenge
Here is my challenge I want you the people of Ireland to generate ideas for achieving 10 key goals for the sustainable development of this country. Focusing on the five key aspects of our environment - land, air, water, energy, and transportation.
I would like to hear your views and help develop a plan together that can become a model for the 21st century. The aim of this proposal is to help ensure a higher quality of life for generations to come and lay the seeds of a low carbon economy by reducing our global warming emissions.
Lets work together to build a better future.
I would like to hear your views and help develop a plan together that can become a model for the 21st century. The aim of this proposal is to help ensure a higher quality of life for generations to come and lay the seeds of a low carbon economy by reducing our global warming emissions.
Lets work together to build a better future.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Politics of the Environment
I was invited to be a guest speaker at the 19th Irish Environmental Researchers Colloquium hosted by Waterford Institute of Technology on the 19th February last.
The main aim of the annual academic seminar is to capture and communicate some of the enormous research and development currently being undertaken in third level collages and institutions throughout Ireland and abroad. The focus of the seminar is to provide a picture of the current research and development being undertaken in Ireland in areas such as sustainable development, climate change, waste management, environmental technologies and eco-innovation, waste and resource management, human health and environmental policy development.
My presentation given to some 200 scientists and academics was on the responsibilities facing the scientific professional community in attempting to address the enormous challenge of climate change.
A summary of my statements would include the following “that in preparing for the environmental, public health and humanitarian crisis of the 21st century each person in the scientific profession needs to have a vision that extends beyond their discipline. I observed that the environmental profession in Ireland stands at a crossroads. Many believe that environmental pressures will eventually push our society to integrate principles of sustainable development into all levels of government and business. The reality, however, is that the society in which we live is failing to engage with these challenges”. I stated “environmental professionals must develop new skills and demonstrate a greater degree of communication with our community, business and political establishment”.
To face the challenges ahead I remarked that environmental professionals need to become more active. “Truly effective environmental professionals need to be able to develop the talents and potential to influence a brighter future. Most of our knowledge and skills have been focused at building technical expertise. Building technical expertise does not however prepare environmental professionals for the broader range of challenges and responsibilities we will ultimately encounter. Many of you identify the challenges facing humanity as a consequence of climate change and monitor these changes over time but do we really recognize what these challenges mean to our community? And are we prepared to act now to make a difference?”
I noted that science tells us clearly that we cannot wait for the next generation of environmental professionals; the responsibility lies with our generation to ensure that with our collective skills and abilities, our professional and personal values influence policy and our society. I emphasized that as scientists “we have a professional obligation not just for scientific excellence but to use our understanding of science to change the world for the better. As professionals we need to engage in practical action not just in our jobs but at local, regional and national level. This may be unpopular for some but it is essential to our profession.”
I examined the question of why have the public not responded to the message of scientists and have scientists failed in their professional duty to educate the public on the risks of climate change?
In my presentation I showed how the rate of economic growth in the past 50yrs,the increase in population, energy consumption, livestock, houses, cars, aviation, travel, Tourism and unprecedented consumerism has reached the point where the planet can no longer sustain it. “The evidence is unequivical” I noted “that the natural world can no longer support the existing ecomony. The waste emissions created by oil and coal combustion now surpass the national absorptive capacities of the earth. Today the atmosphere has the capacity to absorb only one third of the C02 that we produce each year. CO2 emissions have increased fourfold worldwide since 1950 and continue to grow. I questioned why science is losing the war on climate change, and demonstrated that as long as our economic system is based on chasing economic growth above all else, we are heading for environmental and economic disaster.”
I went on to tell the audience that “the anticipated costs from climate changes for the period 2000-2020 are estimated at €6.3 trillion or €315 billion per year and how over the over the past half century we have seen a seven fold expansion of the global economy with little regard for sustainable yields or environmental protection.”
I noted how the financial meltdown “is a classic example of non rational behaviour. Greed prompted dangerous risk taking, and was followed by panic causing financial chaos and noted that as the ice caps melt there is one thing that both climate change and economic chaos emphatically teach us; we cannot tolerate any more unbridled profiteering.”
What is need urgently I said is for scientists to engage with the public and influence attitudes and actions to tackling climate change at a local regional and national level.
For the educationalists and academics in the audience I questioned how science education needs to change to include communication studies, marketing and media skills in order for scientists to communicate more effectively with the public and policy makers. I reminded the audience that science, in the public interest, must, at this critical time become more political for without political action humanity has no future and said that as environmental professionals we must make our voice heard, we must engage not as spectators but as leaders.
The main aim of the annual academic seminar is to capture and communicate some of the enormous research and development currently being undertaken in third level collages and institutions throughout Ireland and abroad. The focus of the seminar is to provide a picture of the current research and development being undertaken in Ireland in areas such as sustainable development, climate change, waste management, environmental technologies and eco-innovation, waste and resource management, human health and environmental policy development.
My presentation given to some 200 scientists and academics was on the responsibilities facing the scientific professional community in attempting to address the enormous challenge of climate change.
A summary of my statements would include the following “that in preparing for the environmental, public health and humanitarian crisis of the 21st century each person in the scientific profession needs to have a vision that extends beyond their discipline. I observed that the environmental profession in Ireland stands at a crossroads. Many believe that environmental pressures will eventually push our society to integrate principles of sustainable development into all levels of government and business. The reality, however, is that the society in which we live is failing to engage with these challenges”. I stated “environmental professionals must develop new skills and demonstrate a greater degree of communication with our community, business and political establishment”.
To face the challenges ahead I remarked that environmental professionals need to become more active. “Truly effective environmental professionals need to be able to develop the talents and potential to influence a brighter future. Most of our knowledge and skills have been focused at building technical expertise. Building technical expertise does not however prepare environmental professionals for the broader range of challenges and responsibilities we will ultimately encounter. Many of you identify the challenges facing humanity as a consequence of climate change and monitor these changes over time but do we really recognize what these challenges mean to our community? And are we prepared to act now to make a difference?”
I noted that science tells us clearly that we cannot wait for the next generation of environmental professionals; the responsibility lies with our generation to ensure that with our collective skills and abilities, our professional and personal values influence policy and our society. I emphasized that as scientists “we have a professional obligation not just for scientific excellence but to use our understanding of science to change the world for the better. As professionals we need to engage in practical action not just in our jobs but at local, regional and national level. This may be unpopular for some but it is essential to our profession.”
I examined the question of why have the public not responded to the message of scientists and have scientists failed in their professional duty to educate the public on the risks of climate change?
In my presentation I showed how the rate of economic growth in the past 50yrs,the increase in population, energy consumption, livestock, houses, cars, aviation, travel, Tourism and unprecedented consumerism has reached the point where the planet can no longer sustain it. “The evidence is unequivical” I noted “that the natural world can no longer support the existing ecomony. The waste emissions created by oil and coal combustion now surpass the national absorptive capacities of the earth. Today the atmosphere has the capacity to absorb only one third of the C02 that we produce each year. CO2 emissions have increased fourfold worldwide since 1950 and continue to grow. I questioned why science is losing the war on climate change, and demonstrated that as long as our economic system is based on chasing economic growth above all else, we are heading for environmental and economic disaster.”
I went on to tell the audience that “the anticipated costs from climate changes for the period 2000-2020 are estimated at €6.3 trillion or €315 billion per year and how over the over the past half century we have seen a seven fold expansion of the global economy with little regard for sustainable yields or environmental protection.”
I noted how the financial meltdown “is a classic example of non rational behaviour. Greed prompted dangerous risk taking, and was followed by panic causing financial chaos and noted that as the ice caps melt there is one thing that both climate change and economic chaos emphatically teach us; we cannot tolerate any more unbridled profiteering.”
What is need urgently I said is for scientists to engage with the public and influence attitudes and actions to tackling climate change at a local regional and national level.
For the educationalists and academics in the audience I questioned how science education needs to change to include communication studies, marketing and media skills in order for scientists to communicate more effectively with the public and policy makers. I reminded the audience that science, in the public interest, must, at this critical time become more political for without political action humanity has no future and said that as environmental professionals we must make our voice heard, we must engage not as spectators but as leaders.
Fact or Scientific Dogma!
In response to Mr. John Streeton’s letter headed “Dictatorial stance on light bulbs” appearing on your February 28th edition may I respond by saying that when it comes to climate change some people are just not persuaded by information and make comments that are simply false and misleading.
Mr Streeton’s letter notes that “I state facts and figures as if it is proven scientific dogma”. A dogma is a belief imposed by an authority and held true even if no or little evidence supports it. Contrary to Mr. Streeton’s comments the overwhelming majority of scientists that study climate change agree that human activity is responsible for changing the climate.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is one of the largest bodies of international scientists ever assembled to study a scientific issue, comprised of more than 2,000 scientists from 100 countries. The IPCC has concluded that most of the warming observed during the past 50 years is attributable to human activities. The IPPC Fourth Assessment Report published in 2007 is considered the most extensively peer-reviewed science document in history. Its findings have been publicly endorsed by all the major international scientific institutions and national science academies from around the world, yet according to Mr Streeton’s “non scientific point of view, purely as an observer”, it is his conclusion that the jury is still out!
To gain an understanding of the level of scientific consensus on climate change, a recent study examined every article on climate change published in peer-reviewed scientific journals over a 10-year period. Of the 928 articles on climate change the authors found, not one of them disagreed with the consensus position that climate change is happening or is human-induced.
The universal consensus is that the climate is warming rapidly beyond natural variability and the primary cause is human-induced CO emissions.
The different social cultures and political systems these organizations operate within make it hard to see how they would all be labelled as eco warriors by Mr. Streeton. One needs to consider this: what interests have scientists in raising the alarm? What interest have governments in discussing very unpopular measures like energy saving light bulbs, carbon rationing, increases in taxes and duties on petrol and gas, road pricing, travel taxes, etc.. And if there were still serious doubts, why would all governments through out the world agree that climate change is the greatest challenge facing humanity?
The consensus of scientific opinion on anthropogenic global warming is so conclusive there can be no doubt yet some people are not willing or ready to listen and continue to believe that science is not clear because this allows them to continue business as usual.
We are used to living with cheap, readily available energy, in a society which encourages us to consume ever more. The evidence of climate change and what its mitigation means for our lifestyles is therefore deeply unsettling for many.
The debate is over about whether or not climate change is real. Irrefutable evidence from around the world - including extreme weather events, record temperatures, retreating glacier’s, and rising sea levels - all point to the fact that climate change is happening now and at rates much faster than previously thought.
Science, however, has moved on and is now attempting to address the problem. It is hard to convey just how selective you have to be to dismiss the evidence for climate change. You must ignore an entire canon of science, the statements of the world’s most eminent scientific institutions and thousands of papers published in the foremost scientific journals.
What that science is telling us is that if we do not drastically reduce our carbon emissions global warming and climate change could destroy the conditions which allow human beings to remain on the planet. The effort to cut greenhouse gases must come before everything else. Each of us must play our part in this. If this is a dictatorial stance then so be it.
Understanding what the science is saying and planning accordingly is what we need to do now within our communities if we are to have any future. The financial crisis has shown what happens when we pay no attention to sustainable development and try to make the facts fit our desires. Now we must learn to live in the real world. Faced with the overwhelming realities of climate change, some people will clutch at any reassurance. For Mr. Streeton it’s a light bulb. God help us all.
Mr Streeton’s letter notes that “I state facts and figures as if it is proven scientific dogma”. A dogma is a belief imposed by an authority and held true even if no or little evidence supports it. Contrary to Mr. Streeton’s comments the overwhelming majority of scientists that study climate change agree that human activity is responsible for changing the climate.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is one of the largest bodies of international scientists ever assembled to study a scientific issue, comprised of more than 2,000 scientists from 100 countries. The IPCC has concluded that most of the warming observed during the past 50 years is attributable to human activities. The IPPC Fourth Assessment Report published in 2007 is considered the most extensively peer-reviewed science document in history. Its findings have been publicly endorsed by all the major international scientific institutions and national science academies from around the world, yet according to Mr Streeton’s “non scientific point of view, purely as an observer”, it is his conclusion that the jury is still out!
To gain an understanding of the level of scientific consensus on climate change, a recent study examined every article on climate change published in peer-reviewed scientific journals over a 10-year period. Of the 928 articles on climate change the authors found, not one of them disagreed with the consensus position that climate change is happening or is human-induced.
The universal consensus is that the climate is warming rapidly beyond natural variability and the primary cause is human-induced CO emissions.
The different social cultures and political systems these organizations operate within make it hard to see how they would all be labelled as eco warriors by Mr. Streeton. One needs to consider this: what interests have scientists in raising the alarm? What interest have governments in discussing very unpopular measures like energy saving light bulbs, carbon rationing, increases in taxes and duties on petrol and gas, road pricing, travel taxes, etc.. And if there were still serious doubts, why would all governments through out the world agree that climate change is the greatest challenge facing humanity?
The consensus of scientific opinion on anthropogenic global warming is so conclusive there can be no doubt yet some people are not willing or ready to listen and continue to believe that science is not clear because this allows them to continue business as usual.
We are used to living with cheap, readily available energy, in a society which encourages us to consume ever more. The evidence of climate change and what its mitigation means for our lifestyles is therefore deeply unsettling for many.
The debate is over about whether or not climate change is real. Irrefutable evidence from around the world - including extreme weather events, record temperatures, retreating glacier’s, and rising sea levels - all point to the fact that climate change is happening now and at rates much faster than previously thought.
Science, however, has moved on and is now attempting to address the problem. It is hard to convey just how selective you have to be to dismiss the evidence for climate change. You must ignore an entire canon of science, the statements of the world’s most eminent scientific institutions and thousands of papers published in the foremost scientific journals.
What that science is telling us is that if we do not drastically reduce our carbon emissions global warming and climate change could destroy the conditions which allow human beings to remain on the planet. The effort to cut greenhouse gases must come before everything else. Each of us must play our part in this. If this is a dictatorial stance then so be it.
Understanding what the science is saying and planning accordingly is what we need to do now within our communities if we are to have any future. The financial crisis has shown what happens when we pay no attention to sustainable development and try to make the facts fit our desires. Now we must learn to live in the real world. Faced with the overwhelming realities of climate change, some people will clutch at any reassurance. For Mr. Streeton it’s a light bulb. God help us all.
Eco Light bulbs and Green Politics
There is no doubt about it but the debate on energy saving light bulbs and Green politics certainly seems to lead to much ranting and raving.
Unless we have sound and accurate debate based on scientific and economic facts such tasteless and absurd hyperbole as noted in the ARCHON article last week will drag us all back to the stone age.
We all create our own reality, however, the ignorant and absurd comments of last week, show not only a lack of comprehension of the current economic crisis, the impacts of which are so enormous it is difficult to comprehend, but also a total lack of understanding of science resulting in a hysterial and misinformed article not worthy of publication.
As a member of the Institute of Energy and Chartered Environmentalist I feel duty bound to respond to these comments.
There are a number of problems with this article; not least that the Green party has lost all credibility, abandoned its guiding principles, the Programme for Government and so on, but also that Minister John Gormley's endeavors to ban traditional lights bulbs were not a good idea. Also, bizarrely, ARCHON states that eco light bulbs contain dangerous levels of mercury and damage health!
While to some it may sem trivial to talk about light bulbs, the reality is that lighting accounts for a significant portion of Ireland's electricity use and represents one of the quickest and simplest ways of saving energy. Across Europe, wasteful lightbulbs keep the equivalent of 10 large power stations pumping out up to 50m tonnes of CO2 each year. Given the repeated failure of Ireland to reduce its carbon emissions, the decision to ban incandescent lightbulbs is, in fact, a vital step.
Secondly, energy efficient bulbs will save you money. Each Compact Fluorescent Lamp (CFL) bulb lasts between 6 and 15 times longer than a traditional incandescent bulb. This is because normal bulbs only convert around 5% of the electricity into light while the equivalent figure for CFLs is 20%. A CFL bulb will save you around €8 per year, so even though they are typically more expensive than the old technology, they pay for themselves quickly though efficiency and longevity. If your entire house is fitted with CFL bulbs - and the average home in Ireland has 26 light bulbs - you will save €700 on your lighting bill over the course of the bulb's lifetime.
Thirdly, energy saving Light Bulbs will reduce environmental pollution. The fact that energy-saving lighting contains trace levels of mercury will not bring new environmental problems rather net mercury emissions related to lighting will be reduced by more than 50%, as fewer kilowatt hours of electricity will need to be produced in coal-fired power plants, which emit a relatively high percentage of the substance through their chimneys. It is important to note that the extra coal - a major source of mercury pollution - that is burned in order to light an older incandescent bulb, leads to roughly three times more mercury being released into the atmosphere compared to a CFL bulb.
Fourthly, banning traditional light bulbs will reduce greenhouse gas emission and help tackle climate change. The International Energy Agency staggering figures speak for themselves, globally lighting currently consumes more electricity than is produced by either hydro or nuclear power and results in CO2 emissions equivalent to about 70% of the world's cars. A single low-energy bulb in normal use saves 111 kilos of carbon dioxide annually. Banning old-fashioned lightbulbs across the whole of the EU would cut carbon emissions by about 20 million tonnes a year - and save between 5 and 8 billion euros a year in domestic fuel bills. Is this not good for the consumer, not to mention the environment ?
Fifthly, Ireland is not alone in attempting to ban the old-fashioned light bulb with policies being introduced in California, Canada, Austrialia and Central America. In fact, Prime Minister Gordon Brown has said he wants to see the UK to be one of the first countries to phase out inefficient light bulbs. Also, in the UK supermarkets voluntarily decided to stop replacing their existing stock of 100W lightbulbs after New Year's Day 2009.
Despite the best efforts of the majority of the world's scientists, ARCHON has somehow managed to remain totally oblivious to, or unconcerned by, the hidden financial costs and environmental harm associated with keeping tens of millions of wasteful incandescent lightbulbs alight. Who would have thought that something as mundane as a humble lightbulb would trigger such an outpouring of ill informed journalism? It would seem to be no more than a desperate attempt to whip up a political frenzy over the fact that the public, according to the most recent political survey, believe that the Green Party are acknowledged as a proactive party in Government!
I sincerely hope that the Minister's attempt to ban traditional light bulbs will provide a firm launch pad for all the other, much bigger, improvements that the Green Ministers introduce in the years ahead; improvements that will save the taxpayer money and help the environment. Meanwhile, ARCHON will write smugly about how the Green Party is incoherently bellowing their message. What the author obviously has failed to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath us, that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long, are outdated and that we need to move forward. Suggesting that the party has abandoned its guiding principles is nonsense. For me, it is indeed a healthy sign of any political party that members are willing to resign. Unfortunatley there are too many political parties in this country whoes members from former Taoisigh to elected councillors refuse to resign regardless of principles, justice or moral integrity.
Finally, it appears that political parties in opposition and commentators will attempt to find any and every opportunity to discredit the Green Party. As a small political party operating in Government as a junior partner for the first time in their history and during the most turbulent of ecomomic times, they are managing their respective Departments well and providing new vision and political leadership.
While some wish to say that Bus Éireann cuts are the responsibility of the Green Party, this is a matter for the Minister for Transport. In our present econonomic reality Bus Eireann has seen a sharp decline in passenger numbers as employment has decreased, emigrants return home and consumer spending reduces. Passenger journeys fell by 4 to 5 per cent last year and the company recorded an operating loss of €10 million in 2008 with further decreases expected and projected losses of €30m this year.
Faced with such financial losses any company has no option but to move forward in whatever way they can and minimize further financial losses while securing employment as much as possible. In the private sector, such an operator would cease trading and go into bankruptcy.
What ARCHON appears to support is more public money pumped into a system that is shown not to be working rather than moving forward and adapting the bus service to current demands. In reality what we are talking about is a 10 per cent reduction in staff and the fleet, amounting to 120 vehicles being taken from the Dublin Bus fleet of 1,182 vehicles. This is indeed unfortunate but it is also a failure of successive Governments to invest in sustainable public transport and the public themselves who prefer to travel by private car rather than take public transport even when such options are readily available. This is something that the Green Party has been bellowing about for two decades.
Unless we have sound and accurate debate based on scientific and economic facts such tasteless and absurd hyperbole as noted in the ARCHON article last week will drag us all back to the stone age.
We all create our own reality, however, the ignorant and absurd comments of last week, show not only a lack of comprehension of the current economic crisis, the impacts of which are so enormous it is difficult to comprehend, but also a total lack of understanding of science resulting in a hysterial and misinformed article not worthy of publication.
As a member of the Institute of Energy and Chartered Environmentalist I feel duty bound to respond to these comments.
There are a number of problems with this article; not least that the Green party has lost all credibility, abandoned its guiding principles, the Programme for Government and so on, but also that Minister John Gormley's endeavors to ban traditional lights bulbs were not a good idea. Also, bizarrely, ARCHON states that eco light bulbs contain dangerous levels of mercury and damage health!
While to some it may sem trivial to talk about light bulbs, the reality is that lighting accounts for a significant portion of Ireland's electricity use and represents one of the quickest and simplest ways of saving energy. Across Europe, wasteful lightbulbs keep the equivalent of 10 large power stations pumping out up to 50m tonnes of CO2 each year. Given the repeated failure of Ireland to reduce its carbon emissions, the decision to ban incandescent lightbulbs is, in fact, a vital step.
Secondly, energy efficient bulbs will save you money. Each Compact Fluorescent Lamp (CFL) bulb lasts between 6 and 15 times longer than a traditional incandescent bulb. This is because normal bulbs only convert around 5% of the electricity into light while the equivalent figure for CFLs is 20%. A CFL bulb will save you around €8 per year, so even though they are typically more expensive than the old technology, they pay for themselves quickly though efficiency and longevity. If your entire house is fitted with CFL bulbs - and the average home in Ireland has 26 light bulbs - you will save €700 on your lighting bill over the course of the bulb's lifetime.
Thirdly, energy saving Light Bulbs will reduce environmental pollution. The fact that energy-saving lighting contains trace levels of mercury will not bring new environmental problems rather net mercury emissions related to lighting will be reduced by more than 50%, as fewer kilowatt hours of electricity will need to be produced in coal-fired power plants, which emit a relatively high percentage of the substance through their chimneys. It is important to note that the extra coal - a major source of mercury pollution - that is burned in order to light an older incandescent bulb, leads to roughly three times more mercury being released into the atmosphere compared to a CFL bulb.
Fourthly, banning traditional light bulbs will reduce greenhouse gas emission and help tackle climate change. The International Energy Agency staggering figures speak for themselves, globally lighting currently consumes more electricity than is produced by either hydro or nuclear power and results in CO2 emissions equivalent to about 70% of the world's cars. A single low-energy bulb in normal use saves 111 kilos of carbon dioxide annually. Banning old-fashioned lightbulbs across the whole of the EU would cut carbon emissions by about 20 million tonnes a year - and save between 5 and 8 billion euros a year in domestic fuel bills. Is this not good for the consumer, not to mention the environment ?
Fifthly, Ireland is not alone in attempting to ban the old-fashioned light bulb with policies being introduced in California, Canada, Austrialia and Central America. In fact, Prime Minister Gordon Brown has said he wants to see the UK to be one of the first countries to phase out inefficient light bulbs. Also, in the UK supermarkets voluntarily decided to stop replacing their existing stock of 100W lightbulbs after New Year's Day 2009.
Despite the best efforts of the majority of the world's scientists, ARCHON has somehow managed to remain totally oblivious to, or unconcerned by, the hidden financial costs and environmental harm associated with keeping tens of millions of wasteful incandescent lightbulbs alight. Who would have thought that something as mundane as a humble lightbulb would trigger such an outpouring of ill informed journalism? It would seem to be no more than a desperate attempt to whip up a political frenzy over the fact that the public, according to the most recent political survey, believe that the Green Party are acknowledged as a proactive party in Government!
I sincerely hope that the Minister's attempt to ban traditional light bulbs will provide a firm launch pad for all the other, much bigger, improvements that the Green Ministers introduce in the years ahead; improvements that will save the taxpayer money and help the environment. Meanwhile, ARCHON will write smugly about how the Green Party is incoherently bellowing their message. What the author obviously has failed to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath us, that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long, are outdated and that we need to move forward. Suggesting that the party has abandoned its guiding principles is nonsense. For me, it is indeed a healthy sign of any political party that members are willing to resign. Unfortunatley there are too many political parties in this country whoes members from former Taoisigh to elected councillors refuse to resign regardless of principles, justice or moral integrity.
Finally, it appears that political parties in opposition and commentators will attempt to find any and every opportunity to discredit the Green Party. As a small political party operating in Government as a junior partner for the first time in their history and during the most turbulent of ecomomic times, they are managing their respective Departments well and providing new vision and political leadership.
While some wish to say that Bus Éireann cuts are the responsibility of the Green Party, this is a matter for the Minister for Transport. In our present econonomic reality Bus Eireann has seen a sharp decline in passenger numbers as employment has decreased, emigrants return home and consumer spending reduces. Passenger journeys fell by 4 to 5 per cent last year and the company recorded an operating loss of €10 million in 2008 with further decreases expected and projected losses of €30m this year.
Faced with such financial losses any company has no option but to move forward in whatever way they can and minimize further financial losses while securing employment as much as possible. In the private sector, such an operator would cease trading and go into bankruptcy.
What ARCHON appears to support is more public money pumped into a system that is shown not to be working rather than moving forward and adapting the bus service to current demands. In reality what we are talking about is a 10 per cent reduction in staff and the fleet, amounting to 120 vehicles being taken from the Dublin Bus fleet of 1,182 vehicles. This is indeed unfortunate but it is also a failure of successive Governments to invest in sustainable public transport and the public themselves who prefer to travel by private car rather than take public transport even when such options are readily available. This is something that the Green Party has been bellowing about for two decades.
How Climate Change and sea level rise will affect our coastal towns and cities.
A rise in sea levels and other changes fuelled by global warming global threatens coastal cities and towns in Ireland and worldwide. Housing, businesses, roads, rail lines, ports and other important infrastructure are all at risk and policy makers and planners should be acting now to avoid or mitigate their effects, according to a new report published by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
Sea levels and Earth climate changes are closely linked. Global warming is predicted to cause significant rises in sea levels this century, estimated by the IPCC (2007) as between 0.09 to c. 0.5m by the end of this century. As the climate warms sea level will continue to rise due to the reduction in volume of ice caps, ice fields, mountain glaciers, melting of the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets in addition to the thermal expansion of ocean water. Research findings from Proudman Oceanographic Laboratories show, however, that sea levels globally may rise by up to 1.5m by 2100, values well above those quoted in the IPCC publications.
As Earth's climate continues to warm, then the volume of present-day ice sheets will continue to decrease. Some estimates show that a complete melting of the Greenland ice sheet could result in a sea-level rise globally of about 6.5 m; separately, melting of the West Antarctic ice sheet could result in a sea-level rise of about 8 m which would have a devastating impact on Ireland and other countries around the world. The West Antarctic ice sheet is especially vulnerable, because much of it is grounded below sea level. Small changes in global sea level or a rise in ocean temperatures could cause a break up of the two buttressing ice shelves, the resulting surge of the West Antarctic ice sheet would lead to a rapid rise in global sea level.
Sea-level rise increases the vulnerability of coastal areas to flooding during storms, increasing infrastructure losses, inundation of wetlands and other low-lying lands, Ireland loosing c.20% of its coastal wetlands by 2100, erode beaches, intensify flooding, and increase the salinity of rivers, bays, and groundwater tables.
Researchers and Governments around the world are currently examining the potential impact of sea level rise on coastal areas in order to start planning how to protect economic assets in cities, in the form of buildings, transport infrastructure, utility infrastructure and other long-lived assets from exposure to flooding as a consequence of climate change. No wonder, because if the Greenland ice sheet disappeared than what happened in New Orleans would be a gentle prelude to a chaotic and tragic future. Consider the global consequences for humanity with half of the worlds population needing to be evacuated to higher ground. It is unimaginable, where would they go, how would one feed humanity, provide shelter, sanitation, food and health care? We are the first generation to know with some certainty how our actions and behaviour today can change the world for future generations. We can plan for adaptation and survival or continue to ignore the global crisis humanity, and the planet, through our actions is in.
The OECD report examined 136 port cities around the world to estimate the exposure of the world’s large port cities (with a population of more than one million) to coastal flooding due to storm surge and damage due to high winds. This study also investigates how climate change is likely to impact each port city through exposure to coastal flooding by the 2070s, alongside subsidence and population growth and urbanization. The analysis focuses on the exposure of population and assets to a 1 in 100 year surge-induced flood event (assuming no defenses), rather than the risk of coastal flooding.
The study identified that the top 10 cities in terms of assets exposed are Miami, Greater New York, New Orleans, Osaka-Kobe, Tokyo, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Nagoya, Tampa-St Petersburg and Virginia Beach. The total value of assets exposed in 2005 is estimated to be US$3,000 billion. By the 2070s, the asset exposure in the 136 cities studied could alone reach $35,000 billion; more than ten times current levels. Yes that’s 35 thousand billion dollars and that’s just for starters.
Given the financial losses on the international markets in the past year this figure taken in context of worldwide economic losses should compel all of us - world leaders, businesses and individuals - towards action rather than the paralysis of fear on climate change. The financial risks for inaction are enormous, more than anything they demand that we need both to reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases immediately and to prepare for the impacts of climate change.
The concentration of future exposure to sea level rise and storm surge in rapidly growing cities urgently underscores the need to integrate the consideration of climate change into both national coastal flood risk management and urban development strategies. Given the heavy concentration of people and assets in port city locations, such as Dublin, Cork Waterford, Limerick and the importance in global trade, failure to develop effective adaptation strategies would inevitably have not just local but also large national or even wider economic consequences.
Coastal cities will face great challenges in managing the significant growth in exposure that will come about from both human and environmental influences, including climate change. The size and concentration of population and economic development in many of the worlds largest port cities, combined with climate change, highlights the strong two-way linkage between development and climate change and the need for more effective governance for climate change adaptation at the city-scale.
The OECD report highlights that a strategic approach to adaptation will be necessary to minimize the likelihood of coastal disasters. The available policy options include a combination of:
• upgraded protection,
• land use planning,
• focusing new development away from the floodplain,
• selective relocation away from existing city areas, and
• flood warning and evacuation, particularly as an immediate response in poorer countries
All port cities require a combination of spatial planning and enhanced defences to manage the rising risk of sea level rise and storm surge with climate change. For cities with large areas at or below mean sea level, flooding can be catastrophic as they can be permanently flooded as illustrated in New Orleans in 2005. Such incidences are lively to increase in intensity in the coming years.
Port cities are a vital component of the global economy, and are also increasingly becoming important concentrations of population and asset value. Thirteen out of the twenty most populated cities in the world in 2005 were port cities. In addition, their economic importance in terms of international trade has grown markedly, as a consequence the concentration of these risks in a few of the world’s cities and nations underscores the urgent need for leadership and attention in these locations particularly as the risk of climate extremes to port cities risks will inevitably increase.
The OCED study examined the economic assets in cities in the form of buildings, transport infrastructure, utility infrastructure and other long-lived assets and their risk exposure to sea level rise, storm surges and population growth. What the reports highlights is that for Dublin by 2070 approximately €25 billion in economic assets in the form of buildings, transport infrastructure, utility infrastructure and other long-lived assets are exposed and that up to 45,000 people may be affected directly (for London the figure is €226 billion with 606,000 people affected).
Taken in a national context and that Ireland has over 7500km of coastline including the port towns of Cork City, Waterford, New Ross, Sligo, Dundalk, Wexford, Cobh, Galway, Wicklow, Limerick, Kinsale, Kenmare, Drogheda, Dundalk and Dun Laoghaire, the economic and environmental impacts are staggering, far in excess of the current financial crises. The cost to insurance markets and the national economy would be catastrophic. The report highlights more than ever the necessity for a national coastal management plan to include flood defense, land use planning and risk assessment. More importantly the report highlights the disturbing analysis from the EPA that greenhouse gas emissions for Ireland will rise in the years to come. So what should our national priorities be?
Putting into place effective disaster management strategies and protection investments will take time and money. According to the OECD the inertia of the socio-economic response suggests that action must begin today to protect port cities and to manage flood risk for impacts expected by the middle of this century. So what we are being told clearly is that we need to invest today to protect our towns, cities and infrastructure for the future, but paradoxically it also means the longer we wait to reduce our emissions the more we will have to pay and not just in fifty years time but tomorrow. Its time we woke up the real international emergency, to paraphrase President Clinton “its not the economy, it’s the environment stupid”
Sea levels and Earth climate changes are closely linked. Global warming is predicted to cause significant rises in sea levels this century, estimated by the IPCC (2007) as between 0.09 to c. 0.5m by the end of this century. As the climate warms sea level will continue to rise due to the reduction in volume of ice caps, ice fields, mountain glaciers, melting of the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets in addition to the thermal expansion of ocean water. Research findings from Proudman Oceanographic Laboratories show, however, that sea levels globally may rise by up to 1.5m by 2100, values well above those quoted in the IPCC publications.
As Earth's climate continues to warm, then the volume of present-day ice sheets will continue to decrease. Some estimates show that a complete melting of the Greenland ice sheet could result in a sea-level rise globally of about 6.5 m; separately, melting of the West Antarctic ice sheet could result in a sea-level rise of about 8 m which would have a devastating impact on Ireland and other countries around the world. The West Antarctic ice sheet is especially vulnerable, because much of it is grounded below sea level. Small changes in global sea level or a rise in ocean temperatures could cause a break up of the two buttressing ice shelves, the resulting surge of the West Antarctic ice sheet would lead to a rapid rise in global sea level.
Sea-level rise increases the vulnerability of coastal areas to flooding during storms, increasing infrastructure losses, inundation of wetlands and other low-lying lands, Ireland loosing c.20% of its coastal wetlands by 2100, erode beaches, intensify flooding, and increase the salinity of rivers, bays, and groundwater tables.
Researchers and Governments around the world are currently examining the potential impact of sea level rise on coastal areas in order to start planning how to protect economic assets in cities, in the form of buildings, transport infrastructure, utility infrastructure and other long-lived assets from exposure to flooding as a consequence of climate change. No wonder, because if the Greenland ice sheet disappeared than what happened in New Orleans would be a gentle prelude to a chaotic and tragic future. Consider the global consequences for humanity with half of the worlds population needing to be evacuated to higher ground. It is unimaginable, where would they go, how would one feed humanity, provide shelter, sanitation, food and health care? We are the first generation to know with some certainty how our actions and behaviour today can change the world for future generations. We can plan for adaptation and survival or continue to ignore the global crisis humanity, and the planet, through our actions is in.
The OECD report examined 136 port cities around the world to estimate the exposure of the world’s large port cities (with a population of more than one million) to coastal flooding due to storm surge and damage due to high winds. This study also investigates how climate change is likely to impact each port city through exposure to coastal flooding by the 2070s, alongside subsidence and population growth and urbanization. The analysis focuses on the exposure of population and assets to a 1 in 100 year surge-induced flood event (assuming no defenses), rather than the risk of coastal flooding.
The study identified that the top 10 cities in terms of assets exposed are Miami, Greater New York, New Orleans, Osaka-Kobe, Tokyo, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Nagoya, Tampa-St Petersburg and Virginia Beach. The total value of assets exposed in 2005 is estimated to be US$3,000 billion. By the 2070s, the asset exposure in the 136 cities studied could alone reach $35,000 billion; more than ten times current levels. Yes that’s 35 thousand billion dollars and that’s just for starters.
Given the financial losses on the international markets in the past year this figure taken in context of worldwide economic losses should compel all of us - world leaders, businesses and individuals - towards action rather than the paralysis of fear on climate change. The financial risks for inaction are enormous, more than anything they demand that we need both to reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases immediately and to prepare for the impacts of climate change.
The concentration of future exposure to sea level rise and storm surge in rapidly growing cities urgently underscores the need to integrate the consideration of climate change into both national coastal flood risk management and urban development strategies. Given the heavy concentration of people and assets in port city locations, such as Dublin, Cork Waterford, Limerick and the importance in global trade, failure to develop effective adaptation strategies would inevitably have not just local but also large national or even wider economic consequences.
Coastal cities will face great challenges in managing the significant growth in exposure that will come about from both human and environmental influences, including climate change. The size and concentration of population and economic development in many of the worlds largest port cities, combined with climate change, highlights the strong two-way linkage between development and climate change and the need for more effective governance for climate change adaptation at the city-scale.
The OECD report highlights that a strategic approach to adaptation will be necessary to minimize the likelihood of coastal disasters. The available policy options include a combination of:
• upgraded protection,
• land use planning,
• focusing new development away from the floodplain,
• selective relocation away from existing city areas, and
• flood warning and evacuation, particularly as an immediate response in poorer countries
All port cities require a combination of spatial planning and enhanced defences to manage the rising risk of sea level rise and storm surge with climate change. For cities with large areas at or below mean sea level, flooding can be catastrophic as they can be permanently flooded as illustrated in New Orleans in 2005. Such incidences are lively to increase in intensity in the coming years.
Port cities are a vital component of the global economy, and are also increasingly becoming important concentrations of population and asset value. Thirteen out of the twenty most populated cities in the world in 2005 were port cities. In addition, their economic importance in terms of international trade has grown markedly, as a consequence the concentration of these risks in a few of the world’s cities and nations underscores the urgent need for leadership and attention in these locations particularly as the risk of climate extremes to port cities risks will inevitably increase.
The OCED study examined the economic assets in cities in the form of buildings, transport infrastructure, utility infrastructure and other long-lived assets and their risk exposure to sea level rise, storm surges and population growth. What the reports highlights is that for Dublin by 2070 approximately €25 billion in economic assets in the form of buildings, transport infrastructure, utility infrastructure and other long-lived assets are exposed and that up to 45,000 people may be affected directly (for London the figure is €226 billion with 606,000 people affected).
Taken in a national context and that Ireland has over 7500km of coastline including the port towns of Cork City, Waterford, New Ross, Sligo, Dundalk, Wexford, Cobh, Galway, Wicklow, Limerick, Kinsale, Kenmare, Drogheda, Dundalk and Dun Laoghaire, the economic and environmental impacts are staggering, far in excess of the current financial crises. The cost to insurance markets and the national economy would be catastrophic. The report highlights more than ever the necessity for a national coastal management plan to include flood defense, land use planning and risk assessment. More importantly the report highlights the disturbing analysis from the EPA that greenhouse gas emissions for Ireland will rise in the years to come. So what should our national priorities be?
Putting into place effective disaster management strategies and protection investments will take time and money. According to the OECD the inertia of the socio-economic response suggests that action must begin today to protect port cities and to manage flood risk for impacts expected by the middle of this century. So what we are being told clearly is that we need to invest today to protect our towns, cities and infrastructure for the future, but paradoxically it also means the longer we wait to reduce our emissions the more we will have to pay and not just in fifty years time but tomorrow. Its time we woke up the real international emergency, to paraphrase President Clinton “its not the economy, it’s the environment stupid”
Politics of the Environment
Declan Waugh, Environmental Scientist, a native of West Cork was a guest speaker at the 19th Irish Environmental Researchers Colloquium hosted by Waterford Institute of Technology on the 19th February last.
The main aim the annual academic seminar is to capture and communicate some of the enormous research and development currently being undertaken in third level collages and institutions throughout Ireland and abroad. The focus of the seminar is to provide a picture of the current research and development being undertaken in Ireland in areas such as sustainable development, climate change, waste management, environmental technologies and eco-innovation, waste and resource management, human health and environmental policy development.
Declan was invited to speak to the key audience of some 200 scientists and academics on the responsibilities facing the scientific professional community in attempting to address the enormous challenge of climate change.
Declan in his thought provoking presentation said “that in preparing for the environmental, public health and humanitarian crisis of the 21st century each person in the scientific profession needs to have a vision that extends beyond their discipline. He observed that the environmental profession in Ireland stands at a crossroads. Many believe that environmental pressures will eventually push our society to integrate principles of sustainable development into all levels of government and business. The reality, however, is that the society in which we live is failing to engage with these challenges”. Therefore he stated “environmental professionals must develop new skills and demonstrate a greater degree of communication with our community, business and political establishment”.
To face the challenges ahead he remarked that environmental professionals need to become more active. “Truly effective environmental professionals need to be able to develop the talents and potential to influence a brighter future. Most of our knowledge and skills have been focused at building technical expertise. Building technical expertise does not however prepare environmental professionals for the broader range of challenges and responsibilities we will ultimately encounter. Many of you identify the challenges facing humanity as a consequence of climate change and monitor these changes over time but do we really recognize what these challenges mean to our community? And are we prepared to act now to make a difference?”
He noted that science tells us clearly that we cannot wait for the next generation of environmental professionals; the responsibility lies with our generation to ensure that with our collective skills and abilities, our professional and personal values influence policy and our society. He emphasized that as scientists “we have a professional obligation not just for scientific excellence but to use our understanding of science to change the world for the better. As professionals we need to engage in practical action not just in our jobs but at local, regional and national level. This may be unpopular for some but it is essential to our profession.”
Declan examined the question of why have the public not responded to the message of scientists and have scientists failed in their professional duty to educate the public on the risks of climate change?
In his presentation he showed how the rate of economic growth in the past 50yrs,the increase in population, energy consumption, livestock, houses, cars, aviation, travel, Tourism and unprecedented consumerism has reached the point where the planet can no longer sustain it. “The evidence is unequivical” he said “that the natural world can no longer support the existing ecomony. The waste emissions created by oil and coal combustion now surpass the national absorptive capacities of the earth. Today the atmosphere has the capacity to absorb only one third of the C02 that we produce each year. CO2 emissions have increased fourfold worldwide since 1950 and continue to grow. He questioned why science is losing the war on climate change, and demonstrated that as long as our economic system is based on chasing economic growth above all else, we are heading for environmental and economic disaster.”
He went on to tell the audience that “the anticipated costs from climate changes for the period 2000-2020 are estimated at €6.3 trillion or €315 billion per year and how over the over the past half century we have seen a seven fold expansion of the global economy with little regard for sustainable yields or environmental protection.”
He noted how the financial meltdown “is a classic example of non rational behaviour. Greed prompted dangerous risk taking, and was followed by panic causing financial chaos and noted that as the ice caps melt there is one thing that both climate change and economic chaos emphatically teach us; we cannot tolerate any more unbridled profiteering.”
What is need urgently he said is for scientists to engage with the public and influence attitudes and actions to tackling climate change at a local regional and national level.
For the educationalists and academics in the audience he questioned how science education needs to change to include communication studies, marketing and media skills in order for scientists to communicate more effectively with the public and policy makers. He reminded the audience that science, in the public interest, must, at this critical time become more political for without political action humanity has no future and said that as environmental professionals we must make our voice heard, we must engage not as spectators but as leaders.
The main aim the annual academic seminar is to capture and communicate some of the enormous research and development currently being undertaken in third level collages and institutions throughout Ireland and abroad. The focus of the seminar is to provide a picture of the current research and development being undertaken in Ireland in areas such as sustainable development, climate change, waste management, environmental technologies and eco-innovation, waste and resource management, human health and environmental policy development.
Declan was invited to speak to the key audience of some 200 scientists and academics on the responsibilities facing the scientific professional community in attempting to address the enormous challenge of climate change.
Declan in his thought provoking presentation said “that in preparing for the environmental, public health and humanitarian crisis of the 21st century each person in the scientific profession needs to have a vision that extends beyond their discipline. He observed that the environmental profession in Ireland stands at a crossroads. Many believe that environmental pressures will eventually push our society to integrate principles of sustainable development into all levels of government and business. The reality, however, is that the society in which we live is failing to engage with these challenges”. Therefore he stated “environmental professionals must develop new skills and demonstrate a greater degree of communication with our community, business and political establishment”.
To face the challenges ahead he remarked that environmental professionals need to become more active. “Truly effective environmental professionals need to be able to develop the talents and potential to influence a brighter future. Most of our knowledge and skills have been focused at building technical expertise. Building technical expertise does not however prepare environmental professionals for the broader range of challenges and responsibilities we will ultimately encounter. Many of you identify the challenges facing humanity as a consequence of climate change and monitor these changes over time but do we really recognize what these challenges mean to our community? And are we prepared to act now to make a difference?”
He noted that science tells us clearly that we cannot wait for the next generation of environmental professionals; the responsibility lies with our generation to ensure that with our collective skills and abilities, our professional and personal values influence policy and our society. He emphasized that as scientists “we have a professional obligation not just for scientific excellence but to use our understanding of science to change the world for the better. As professionals we need to engage in practical action not just in our jobs but at local, regional and national level. This may be unpopular for some but it is essential to our profession.”
Declan examined the question of why have the public not responded to the message of scientists and have scientists failed in their professional duty to educate the public on the risks of climate change?
In his presentation he showed how the rate of economic growth in the past 50yrs,the increase in population, energy consumption, livestock, houses, cars, aviation, travel, Tourism and unprecedented consumerism has reached the point where the planet can no longer sustain it. “The evidence is unequivical” he said “that the natural world can no longer support the existing ecomony. The waste emissions created by oil and coal combustion now surpass the national absorptive capacities of the earth. Today the atmosphere has the capacity to absorb only one third of the C02 that we produce each year. CO2 emissions have increased fourfold worldwide since 1950 and continue to grow. He questioned why science is losing the war on climate change, and demonstrated that as long as our economic system is based on chasing economic growth above all else, we are heading for environmental and economic disaster.”
He went on to tell the audience that “the anticipated costs from climate changes for the period 2000-2020 are estimated at €6.3 trillion or €315 billion per year and how over the over the past half century we have seen a seven fold expansion of the global economy with little regard for sustainable yields or environmental protection.”
He noted how the financial meltdown “is a classic example of non rational behaviour. Greed prompted dangerous risk taking, and was followed by panic causing financial chaos and noted that as the ice caps melt there is one thing that both climate change and economic chaos emphatically teach us; we cannot tolerate any more unbridled profiteering.”
What is need urgently he said is for scientists to engage with the public and influence attitudes and actions to tackling climate change at a local regional and national level.
For the educationalists and academics in the audience he questioned how science education needs to change to include communication studies, marketing and media skills in order for scientists to communicate more effectively with the public and policy makers. He reminded the audience that science, in the public interest, must, at this critical time become more political for without political action humanity has no future and said that as environmental professionals we must make our voice heard, we must engage not as spectators but as leaders.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Partnership for Change Supports WaterAid on World Water Day
The United Nations General Assembly designated 22 March of each year as the World Day for Water to draw international attention to the critical lack of clean, safe drinking water worldwide.
Water and sanitation are human rights, vital to reducing poverty around the world. Together with good hygiene these essential services are the building blocks for all other development - improving health, education and livelihoods. These basic human rights underpin health, education and livelihoods and form the first, essential step in overcoming poverty.
Partnership for Change (PFC) a non profit voluntary organization established by Chartered Environmentalist Declan Waugh to raise awareness on climate change, encourage adaptation and sustainable development are delighted to support World Water day by sponsoring the work of WaterAid, an international charity working in 17 countries including Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Ghana, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, Nigeria, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia in Africa; Bangladesh, India, Nepal and Pakistan in Asia; and Papua New Guinea and Timor-Leste in the Pacific region.
When it comes to climate change, the world’s water crisis will be one of the most significant public health issues of this century. There are still almost 1.1 billion people without adequate access to water and 2.6 billion without adequate sanitation. As a consequence of climate change these numbers are expected to rise dramatically over the next two decades. According to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment report, forty percent or 3.5 billion of the worlds population may be living in countries with chronic water scarcity by 2025.
WaterAid is principally a development organisation, working with communities on long-term solutions to water and sanitation problems providing water, sanitation and hygiene education to some of the world's poorest people.
“5000 children die every day from diseases caused by unsafe water and sanitation; mainly from diarrhoeal diseases like cholera and dysentery. Yet all are easily prevented through water, sanitation and hygiene projects. In the year 2007/8 WaterAid and its partners helped more than 1.3 million people gain access to safe water and over three million people gain access to sanitation. PFC are delighted to support and raise awareness of the work of WaterAid” says Declan Waugh, “their projects have been targeted at the most vulnerable, with special emphasis placed on helping those groups who may be excluded from accessing water and sanitation on the basis of economic and social factors such as disability, ethnicity, religion, gender, age, social status or HIV/AIDS.”
WaterAid are the second development organisation to receive significant sponsorship from Partnership for Change this year. For further information on WaterAid view their website at http://www.wateraid.org or http://www.partnershipforchange.ie
Water and sanitation are human rights, vital to reducing poverty around the world. Together with good hygiene these essential services are the building blocks for all other development - improving health, education and livelihoods. These basic human rights underpin health, education and livelihoods and form the first, essential step in overcoming poverty.
Partnership for Change (PFC) a non profit voluntary organization established by Chartered Environmentalist Declan Waugh to raise awareness on climate change, encourage adaptation and sustainable development are delighted to support World Water day by sponsoring the work of WaterAid, an international charity working in 17 countries including Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Ghana, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, Nigeria, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia in Africa; Bangladesh, India, Nepal and Pakistan in Asia; and Papua New Guinea and Timor-Leste in the Pacific region.
When it comes to climate change, the world’s water crisis will be one of the most significant public health issues of this century. There are still almost 1.1 billion people without adequate access to water and 2.6 billion without adequate sanitation. As a consequence of climate change these numbers are expected to rise dramatically over the next two decades. According to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment report, forty percent or 3.5 billion of the worlds population may be living in countries with chronic water scarcity by 2025.
WaterAid is principally a development organisation, working with communities on long-term solutions to water and sanitation problems providing water, sanitation and hygiene education to some of the world's poorest people.
“5000 children die every day from diseases caused by unsafe water and sanitation; mainly from diarrhoeal diseases like cholera and dysentery. Yet all are easily prevented through water, sanitation and hygiene projects. In the year 2007/8 WaterAid and its partners helped more than 1.3 million people gain access to safe water and over three million people gain access to sanitation. PFC are delighted to support and raise awareness of the work of WaterAid” says Declan Waugh, “their projects have been targeted at the most vulnerable, with special emphasis placed on helping those groups who may be excluded from accessing water and sanitation on the basis of economic and social factors such as disability, ethnicity, religion, gender, age, social status or HIV/AIDS.”
WaterAid are the second development organisation to receive significant sponsorship from Partnership for Change this year. For further information on WaterAid view their website at http://www.wateraid.org or http://www.partnershipforchange.ie
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Medicines Sans Frontiers/Doctors Without Borders
The aims of Partnership for Change (PFC) are to face up to the challenge of climate change, to assist in communicating the impacts of global warming, encourage adaptation and sustainable development while also supporting the efforts of individuals and organisations providing essential development and humanitarian aid to communities across the world.
The first organisation to receive a donation on behalf of PFC is Medicines Sans Frontiers/Doctors Without Borders (MSF).
MSF is an independent humanitarian medical aid agency committed providing emergency medical assistance to populations in danger in more than 70 countries. In 1999, MSF was awarded the International Nobel Peace Prize, "in recognition of the organization’s pioneering humanitarian work on several continents." The award honored the work of MSF relief workers bringing medical assistance to people in more than 80 countries over 20 of which are in conflict.
In each country where MSF is working, one or more of four events has taken place. This triggers a medical humanitarian response, and if required, the obligation to speak out to ensure those in need are assisted. The four events are armed conflict, endemic/ epidemic disease, social violence/healthcare exclusion and natural disasters.
“In the past decade MSF have seen a huge increase in the need for their services, we have witnessed an increase in the scale of natural disasters around the world, many as a consequence of climate change. Wherever natural disasters have struck be it in Pakistan, Thailand, or Haiti you will find MSF personal on the front line providing essential humanitarian aid and medical assistance” say Declan Waugh. Populations affected by natural disasters require an immediate medical humanitarian response. They find themselves in desperate conditions, having suddenly lost their homes, material goods, family members and relatives. They are highly traumatized, in need of rapid and diverse medical care and support.
When the news reports about violence or war in Darfur, Zimbabwe, Afghanistan or Chad, where Irish soldiers are stationed, MSF staff are there helping the local community in whatever way they can. You will find them Gaza, providing essential access to medical aid and life saving surgery while risking the lives of their volunteers to help innocent victims. Some of their staff have been murdered providing this humanitarian service a painful reminder of the sacrifices their staff and families make in undertaking their everyday work.
When it comes to climate change according to Declan Waugh “we must release that actions we take here at home contribute to impacts felt in the poorest of communities across the world. How we live our lives here, will impact on the futures of innocent peoples throughout the world, for this reason each of such has a responsibility to rise to the challenge of sustainability within the political, social, cultural or development or economic dimensions. We are releasing that we live in a new age of limits, both economic and environmental. It is an age requiring a new vision of leadership, a new vision of wealth and a new meaning of happiness.”
PFC is delighted to be in position to support and raise awareness of organisations that provide inspiration to us all through their work and commitment to social justice, providing a vision of citizenship and responsibility in an age of such uncertainty and fear.
Further details of this are available on www.partnershipforchange.ie
The first organisation to receive a donation on behalf of PFC is Medicines Sans Frontiers/Doctors Without Borders (MSF).
MSF is an independent humanitarian medical aid agency committed providing emergency medical assistance to populations in danger in more than 70 countries. In 1999, MSF was awarded the International Nobel Peace Prize, "in recognition of the organization’s pioneering humanitarian work on several continents." The award honored the work of MSF relief workers bringing medical assistance to people in more than 80 countries over 20 of which are in conflict.
In each country where MSF is working, one or more of four events has taken place. This triggers a medical humanitarian response, and if required, the obligation to speak out to ensure those in need are assisted. The four events are armed conflict, endemic/ epidemic disease, social violence/healthcare exclusion and natural disasters.
“In the past decade MSF have seen a huge increase in the need for their services, we have witnessed an increase in the scale of natural disasters around the world, many as a consequence of climate change. Wherever natural disasters have struck be it in Pakistan, Thailand, or Haiti you will find MSF personal on the front line providing essential humanitarian aid and medical assistance” say Declan Waugh. Populations affected by natural disasters require an immediate medical humanitarian response. They find themselves in desperate conditions, having suddenly lost their homes, material goods, family members and relatives. They are highly traumatized, in need of rapid and diverse medical care and support.
When the news reports about violence or war in Darfur, Zimbabwe, Afghanistan or Chad, where Irish soldiers are stationed, MSF staff are there helping the local community in whatever way they can. You will find them Gaza, providing essential access to medical aid and life saving surgery while risking the lives of their volunteers to help innocent victims. Some of their staff have been murdered providing this humanitarian service a painful reminder of the sacrifices their staff and families make in undertaking their everyday work.
When it comes to climate change according to Declan Waugh “we must release that actions we take here at home contribute to impacts felt in the poorest of communities across the world. How we live our lives here, will impact on the futures of innocent peoples throughout the world, for this reason each of such has a responsibility to rise to the challenge of sustainability within the political, social, cultural or development or economic dimensions. We are releasing that we live in a new age of limits, both economic and environmental. It is an age requiring a new vision of leadership, a new vision of wealth and a new meaning of happiness.”
PFC is delighted to be in position to support and raise awareness of organisations that provide inspiration to us all through their work and commitment to social justice, providing a vision of citizenship and responsibility in an age of such uncertainty and fear.
Further details of this are available on www.partnershipforchange.ie
Monday, March 2, 2009
Cork Environmental Forum Award for Individual Contribution to Environment
Declan Waugh, chartered environmentalist and environmental scientist was honoured at the 2008 Cork Environmental Forum awards ceremony, which was held in December. Declan, who lives in Bandon but hails from Skibbereen, received the award for outstanding individual contribution to the environment for 2008 for his work in Climate Change.
Senator Dan Boyle, in addressing those at the ceremony, spoke of the significance of the Partnership for Change initiative established by Declan in 2008 and the hugely successful international conference which he organised for Cork City, which included some of the most renowned and acclaimed scientific experts in the world on climate change.
Michael Hobbs of the Cork Environmental Forum nominated Declan for his outstanding achievement in organising the exceptional climate change conference and said that the work undertaken by Declan, which was entirely on a voluntary basis was equal to that of ten people. In addition to organising the conference Declan procured sponsorship for secondary school students from twenty schools in Cork county and city to attend the conference. Pupils from schools in Bandon and Clonakilty were included. Moreover, one hundred university students from eight third level colleges across Ireland also participated under the sponsorship programme. Declan also visited secondary schools across West Cork to give educational climate change presentations to students during the year.
On receiving the award Declan stated “that one of my interests outside of the environment is history and photography and that each of the 31 speakers who contributed to the conference received framed photographic prints of historical sites in West |Cork”. He mentioned how the world’s most distinguished climate scientist Dr James Hansen, Director of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, had contacted him to say that the only picture hanging in his personal study is the one presented to him of West Cork from Partnership for Change. Declan remarked that “when one reflects on the history of the past two centuries what stands out for me is that in the 19th century humanity managed to remove the shackles of slavery, in the 20th century humanity removed the shackles of colonialism and how now in the 21st century we are at the centre of the greatest challenge facing humanity, one that requires us to remove the shackles of excess consumerism and unsustainable development ”. Declan also noted how “in the last century the world faced three World Wars: World War One, the Second World War and the Cold War, and how this century we face another world war, one of truly global scale, where each of us individually must wage war with ourselves and our unsustainable lifestyles. This personal battle will decide the future of humanity.”
Declan accepted the award on behalf of all speakers who gave freely of their time to the Climate Change Conference and in particular on behalf of the students and delegates who attended the event. The award, he believes, recognises the unique initiative of Partnership for Change, how we can dare to hope that humanity can tackle climate change and in doing so, provide humanity with a different future. In closing Declan noted that at this historic and exciting moment, society needs strong political leadership and in part a new generation of politicians motivated by sustainable development to help solve the ecological crisis we now face.
Presentations given at the conference including recorded video presentations are now available to download and view at www. partnershipforchange.ie
Senator Dan Boyle, in addressing those at the ceremony, spoke of the significance of the Partnership for Change initiative established by Declan in 2008 and the hugely successful international conference which he organised for Cork City, which included some of the most renowned and acclaimed scientific experts in the world on climate change.
Michael Hobbs of the Cork Environmental Forum nominated Declan for his outstanding achievement in organising the exceptional climate change conference and said that the work undertaken by Declan, which was entirely on a voluntary basis was equal to that of ten people. In addition to organising the conference Declan procured sponsorship for secondary school students from twenty schools in Cork county and city to attend the conference. Pupils from schools in Bandon and Clonakilty were included. Moreover, one hundred university students from eight third level colleges across Ireland also participated under the sponsorship programme. Declan also visited secondary schools across West Cork to give educational climate change presentations to students during the year.
On receiving the award Declan stated “that one of my interests outside of the environment is history and photography and that each of the 31 speakers who contributed to the conference received framed photographic prints of historical sites in West |Cork”. He mentioned how the world’s most distinguished climate scientist Dr James Hansen, Director of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, had contacted him to say that the only picture hanging in his personal study is the one presented to him of West Cork from Partnership for Change. Declan remarked that “when one reflects on the history of the past two centuries what stands out for me is that in the 19th century humanity managed to remove the shackles of slavery, in the 20th century humanity removed the shackles of colonialism and how now in the 21st century we are at the centre of the greatest challenge facing humanity, one that requires us to remove the shackles of excess consumerism and unsustainable development ”. Declan also noted how “in the last century the world faced three World Wars: World War One, the Second World War and the Cold War, and how this century we face another world war, one of truly global scale, where each of us individually must wage war with ourselves and our unsustainable lifestyles. This personal battle will decide the future of humanity.”
Declan accepted the award on behalf of all speakers who gave freely of their time to the Climate Change Conference and in particular on behalf of the students and delegates who attended the event. The award, he believes, recognises the unique initiative of Partnership for Change, how we can dare to hope that humanity can tackle climate change and in doing so, provide humanity with a different future. In closing Declan noted that at this historic and exciting moment, society needs strong political leadership and in part a new generation of politicians motivated by sustainable development to help solve the ecological crisis we now face.
Presentations given at the conference including recorded video presentations are now available to download and view at www. partnershipforchange.ie
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
