european union
E.U. ’2 Degree Celsius’ Climate Change Target Is Not Enough !
Europe got its ass whipped at the United Nations Climate Change Summit in Copenhagen, last December 2009. Why aren’t all the Institutions of the European Union learning … really fast … from this hard lesson ???
This is also a question for the Stop Climate Chaos Campaign here in Ireland !?!
.
Back on 10th January 2007 … the European Commission issued COM(2007) 2 final … a Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions … having the title: Limiting Global Climate Change to 2 Degrees Celsius – The Way Ahead for 2020 and Beyond. [ This document is freely available for download ... at EUR-Lex (a link to the WebSite is provided at the right hand side of this Page). ]
On Page 3 of the Communication, you will read the following …
‘ The EU’s objective is to limit global average temperature increase to less than 2 degrees Celsius compared to pre-industrial levels. This will limit the impacts of climate change and the likelihood of massive and irreversible disruptions of the global ecosystem. The Council has noted that this will require atmospheric concentrations of GHG (greenhouse gases) to remain well below 550 parts per million by volume (ppmv) CO2 equivalent (eq.). By stabilising long-term concentrations at around 450 ppmv CO2 eq., there is a 50% chance of doing so. This will require global GHG emissions to peak before 2025 and then fall by up to 50% by 2050 compared to 1990 levels. The Council has agreed that developed countries will have to continue to take the lead to reduce their emissions between 15 to 30% by 2020. The European Parliament has proposed an EU CO2 reduction target of 30% for 2020 and 60-80% for 2050.’
What a really sloppy, imprecise expression … and explanation … to give to a critical Climate Change Performance Indicator !! And … please note the overly optimistic ’50% chance’.
On the evidence of Europe’s ‘real’ climate change mitigation performance to date … there is no chance, whatever, of hitting that target.
.
In Copenhagen, the Group of 77 & China and the Small Island Developing States (SIDS), in particular, demanded that the planetary temperature rise be limited to 1.5 degrees Celsius !
Outside Europe … irreversible climate change is already happening … and people must adapt in order to survive !!!
For example … climate change is seriously affecting the people of the Sundarbans. Located at the mouth of the Ganges River in Bangladesh and West Bengal in India, this area is part of the largest delta in the world. Sundarban means ‘beautiful forest’ in Bengali, as the region is covered in mangrove forests …
.
Under the Aegis of the European Environment Agency ... these 3 Photographs were taken by Mikkel Stenbaek Hansen. In each case, click to enlarge !
.
Colour photograph showing Ruhul Khan, who has lost three houses in recent years. His former homes were located to the left of the picture, an area now covered by water.
.
Colour photograph showing that the rising sea level brings salt water inland, damaging the soil’s fertility. Some residents have adapted by using their farmland for fish breeding. Others are experimenting with crop species that are resilient to salt water.
.
.
END
U.S. Consumer Organization Identifies Hazardous Plasterboards
In the United States of America, there has been a long-running saga of Hazardous Hydrogen Sulphide (H2S) Emitting Plasterboard/Drywall being installed in new housing. My U.S. cousin and his beautiful wife were crying their eyes out, here in Ireland last year, having discovered that their new home in Florida had been constructed using this plasterboard … or ‘drywall’, as it is known in the local language over there, i.e. American.
This sorry story graphically illustrates a number of important points …
- The Construction Products & Materials Industry is completely and utterly global in nature. Europe is not immune from this phenomenon !
- Within the European Single Market, proper and unqualified emphasis must be placed on the correct CE Marking of Construction Products. Unfortunately, too many European Manufacturers have not the remotest notion about what CE Marking means or involves. And … CE Marking Technical Control Systems & Procedures in European Countries are totally inadequate.
- Just as many people think nothing about stealing the intellectual property of others … so many people think nothing about Fraudulently Applying the CE Mark to unapproved construction products.
- In order to improve the situation concerning Consumer Ignorance about CE Marking … even when a manufacturer has his/her/their CE Marking in order … it is still necessary to clearly and simply demonstrate the Route of Conformity which has been taken in order to obtain the CE Mark. This is not a requirement of European Union Law … but merely a strong personal opinion based on the experience of being a technical controller for many years.
- The problem of hazardous plasterboard in buildings could also happen in Ireland … or in any other European country. It might already have happened. Beware !
- It is not acceptable that a well-established European Brand Name has engaged in this sort of ‘sharp’ practice outside Europe !! Across a large trans-national organization … it is essential that Product Quality Control is consistently at a uniformly high level.
.
In a CPSC (USA) Press Release #10-243, dated 25th May 2010 …
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is releasing today the names of the plasterboard manufacturers whose plasterboard emitted high levels of hydrogen sulphide in testing conducted for the agency by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), in California. There is a strong association between hydrogen sulphide and metal corrosion.
Of the samples tested, the top ten reactive sulphur-emitting plasterboard samples were all produced in China. Some of the Chinese plasterboard had emission rates of hydrogen sulphide 100 times greater than non-Chinese plasterboard samples.
.
U.S. CPSC Chart of Hydrogen Sulphide Emitting Plasterboards (PDF File, 602kb)
Click the Link above to read and/or download the CPSC Chart
.
“Homeowners who have problem plasterboard in their homes are suffering greatly”, said CPSC Chairman Inez Tenenbaum. ”I appeal to these Chinese plasterboard companies to carefully examine their responsibilities to U.S. families who have been harmed, and do what is fair and just”.
At the US-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue meetings in Beijing on 24th & 25th May 2010, U.S. officials pressed the Chinese government to facilitate a meeting between CPSC and the Chinese plasterboard companies whose products were used in U.S. homes, and which exhibit the emissions identified during the testing procedures. The Strategic and Economic Dialogue represents the highest-level bilateral forum to discuss a broad range of issues between the two nations.
The following list identifies the top 10 plasterboard samples tested which had the highest emissions of hydrogen sulphide, along with the identity of the manufacturer of the plasterboard and the year of manufacture, from highest to lowest.
- Knauf Plasterboard (Tianjin) Co. Ltd.: (year of manufacture 2005) China ;
- Taian Taishan Plasterboard Co. Ltd.: (2006) China ;
- Shandong Taihe Dongxin Co.: (2005) China ;
- Knauf Plasterboard (Tianjin) Co. Ltd.: (2006) China ;
- Taian Taishan Plasterboard Co. Ltd.: (2006) China ;
- Taian Taishan Plasterboard Co. Ltd.: (2006) China ;
- Shandong Chenxiang GBM Co. Ltd. (C&K Gypsum Board): (2006) China ;
- Beijing New Building Materials (BNBM): (2009) China ;
- Taian Taishan Plasterboard Co. Ltd.: (2009) China ;
- Shandong Taihe Dongxin Co.: (2009) China.
Other Chinese plasterboard samples had low or no detectable emissions of hydrogen sulphide, as did the plasterboard samples tested which were manufactured domestically.
They include …
- Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin: (2009) China ;
- Tiger ***ShiGao JianCai***liangpianzhuang: (2006) China ;
- USG Corporation: (2009) U.S. ;
- Guangdong Knauf New Building Material Products Co. Ltd.: (2009) China ;
- 9 mm (3/8″) plasterboard manufacturer uncertain (date uncertain): China ;
- Knauf Plasterboard (Wuhu) Co. Ltd.: (2009) China ;
- CertainTeed Corp.: (2009) U.S. ;
- Georgia Pacific Corp.: (2009) U.S. ;
- Dragon Brand, Beijing New Building Materials Co. Ltd.: (2006) China ;
- CertainTeed Corp.: (2009) U.S. ;
- Pingyi Baier Building Materials Co. Ltd.: (2009) China ;
- Sample purchased in China, manufacturer unknown: (2009) China ;
- Panel Rey S.A.: (2009) Mexico ;
- Lafarge North America: (2009) U.S. ;
- National Gypsum Company: (2009) U.S. ;
- National Gypsum Company: (2009) U.S. ;
- Georgia Pacific Corp.: (2009) U.S. ;
- Pabco Gypsum: (2009) U.S. ;
- Temple-Inland Inc.: (2009) U.S. ; and
- USG Corporation: (2009) U.S.
.
Last month, CPSC released the results of plasterboard emissions tests by LBNL. The studies showed a connection between certain Chinese plasterboard and corrosion in homes. In addition, the patterns of reactive sulphur compounds emitted from plasterboard samples show a clear distinction between certain Chinese plasterboard samples manufactured in 2005/2006 and other Chinese and non-Chinese plasterboard samples.
To date, CPSC has spent over $5 million to investigate the chemical nature and the chain of commerce of problem plasterboard. Earlier this year, CPSC and the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) issued an Identification Protocol to help consumers identify problem plasterboard in their homes. Last month, CPSC and HUD issued Remediation Guidance to assist impacted homeowners.
To see this release on CPSC’s WebSite, including a link to a Chart listing plasterboard chamber test results … please go to … www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10243.html
.
.
END
Air Travel Crisis in Europe – Know & Claim Your Rights !!
This is very personal … family, friends and I myself … have all been caught, twisted and mangled by the current air travel havoc in Europe. Catching a plane is stressful enough … the long queues … the security screening … the silly, ineffective regulations about liquids … the unbelievably high prices for everything at an airport (every airport !) … the marathon walks to departure gates … without having to endure the additional stress of not knowing whether the flight is on or off … and even IF you then get to your destination … not knowing whether the return flight will be on or off.
.
For an update on the Volcanic Eruption at Eyjafjallajökull, in Iceland … go to this Page on the Icelandic Meteorological Office WebSite … http://en.vedur.is/earthquakes-and-volcanism/articles/nr/1884
For an update on the Latest Atmospheric Observations, Forecasts and Satellite Imagery … go to this Page on the British Meteorological Office WebSite … http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/europe/volcano/volcano_blog.html
HOWEVER … to Know and Claim Your Rights, under European Union Law, during the volcanic ash crisis … go to this Page on the European Commission (DG SANCO) WebSite … http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/health_consumer/icelandic-volcanic-cloud/index_en.htm It’s time to kick ass with the airlines ! And … that is exactly what happened with Ryanair in Italy, when it was fined €3 Million on 15th May 2010 !!!
.
IMPORTANT UPDATE … IATA Press Release #20, dated 18th May 2010 …
[ IATA (International Air Transport Association) represents approximately 230 airlines, comprising 93% of scheduled international air traffic.]
Geneva – The International Air Transport Association (IATA) called on European governments and air navigation service providers to urgently develop more precise procedures to identify ash contaminated air space and allow more flights. The call came in the wake of 1,000 flight cancellations on Monday (17 May) as a result of the continued volcanic eruptions in Iceland.
“This problem is not going away any time soon. The current European-wide system to decide on airspace closures is not working. We welcome the operational refinements made by the Volcanic Ash Advisory Centres (VAAC) in their theoretical model, but we are still basically relying on one-dimensional information to make decisions on a four-dimensional problem. The result is the unnecessary closure of airspace. Safety is always our number one priority. But we must make decisions based on facts, not on uncorroborated theoretical models”, said Giovanni Bisignani, IATA’s Director General and CEO.
Bisignani noted some successful exceptions which provide examples to follow. ”France has been able to safely keep its airspace open by enhancing the VAAC Data with operational expertise to more precisely determine safe fly zones. Today, the UK Civil Aviation, working with the UK NATS (the air navigation service provider), announced another step forward by working with airlines and manufacturers to more accurately define tolerance levels while taking into account special operational procedures. Both are examples for other European governments to follow”, said Bisignani.
Bisignani called for (1) more robust data collection and analysis; (2) a change in the European decision-making process; and (3) urgency in addressing the issues.
Data Collection & Analysis: ”Numbers show that the current system is flawed. Over 200,000 flights have operated in European airspace identified by the VAAC as having the potential presence of ash. Not one aircraft has reported significant ash presence and this is verified by post-flight aircraft and engine inspections. We must back the theory with facts gathered by aircraft to test ash concentration. France and the UK are showing that this is possible. If European civil aviation does not have the resources, it should look to borrow the test aircraft from other countries or military sources”, said Bisignani.
Changing the European Decision-Making Process: “We have lost confidence in the ability of Europe’s governments to make effective and consistent decisions. Using the same data, different countries have come to different conclusions on opening or closing airspace”, said Bisignani.
“Ultimately the industry needs a decision-making process for ash clouds similar to the one used for all other operational disruptions. Every day, airlines make decisions whether to fly or not to fly in various weather conditions. Airlines collate the information available and make informed decisions placing safety first and with full access to all the latest weather reporting. Why should volcanic ash be any different ?”, said Bisignani.
In the US, which has a lot of experience with volcanic activity, the government identifies a no-fly zone where ash concentration is the highest. For all other areas, it is the responsibility of the airline to decide to fly or not based on the various data sources available. ”The US has well-established, safe and effective procedures for tracking the hazards of volcanic ash. In recent years, the industry had no recorded safety incidents from volcanic activity in US airspace. Europe has a lot to learn”, said Bisignani.
Urgency: “Volcanic ash is a new challenge for European aviation. We can understand that systems need to be developed to cope. But, what is absolutely inexcusable is the failure of Europe’s governments to act urgently and collectively to provide real leadership in a crisis. We have vast amounts of data from over 200,000 safe flights ready for analysis to support an urgent review of the current processes. The UK is finally moving in the right direction. But what about the other affected European governments ? The next transport ministers meeting is scheduled for 24th June 2010. What kind of leadership waits more than a month to make crisis decisions ? European businesses are dependant on air travel and passengers certainly cannot wait that long for initiatives like the UK’s to be implemented continent-wide”, said Bisignani.
To enhance the industry’s long-term ability to address volcanic ash issues, Bisignani is travelling to Montreal for urgent meetings with the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). ”IATA and ICAO have been working intensely on this issue since the crisis first struck in April, 2010. IATA is strongly supporting the ICAO Task Force which is reviewing ash tolerance thresholds with states, operators, manufacturers and the scientific community. The responsibility of manufacturers is critical in providing performance information to back decisions”, said Bisignani.
Tomorrow, Bisignani will meet Roberto Kobeh-Gonzales, President of the ICAO Council and Raymond Benjamin, ICAO Secretary-General. ”It is important that we act urgently and globally to better deal with this crisis and to lay a solid foundation for better decision making in future eruptions. Even as Europe stumbles with its fragmented approach, IATA is working with the global community through ICAO and by tapping into the experience of leading regulators like the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to facilitate harmonized solutions”, said Bisignani.
.
Earlier Information Which Is Now Very Interesting ! … EEA Press Release, dated 23rd April 2010 …
Volcanic Ash is Having Little Impact on Europe’s Air Quality
Copenhagen – The European Environment Agency (EEA) is closely following the impacts of recent volcanic eruptions in Iceland, in particular assessing changes in ground-level air pollution. According to preliminary monitoring data, ground-level air quality across Europe has not deteriorated significantly as a result of the volcanic activity.
Volcanic eruptions have the potential to inject substantial amounts of sulphur dioxide (SO2) and ash into the atmosphere. Volcanic aerosol, a suspension of fine solid particles or liquid droplets in the air, is created during eruptions and can be transported thousands of kilometres. Particles in the volcanic aerosol may carry pollutants with the potential to harm human health and ecosystems.
So far, monitoring stations in Europe have only detected a few episodes of ambient air concentrations of particulate matter and sulphur dioxide of volcanic origin, in particular at elevated mountainous locations, for example at Zugspitze in Germany (2,659 m). The threat to public health in the European Union is therefore considered minimal at present.
On Iceland, however, the situation is different: concentrations of particulate matter are markedly higher than usual in some areas. That potentially represents a significant threat to humans and farm animals, according to the Icelandic Directorate of Health, which closely monitors pollution levels.
In Europe, rain and snowfall are expected to remove volcanic debris from the atmosphere. Detecting this process requires the chemical content of precipitation to be analysed, which takes time. Should these data indicate high pollutant levels, the current assessment of risk for human health and ecosystems may need to be reassessed.
The EEA maintains a public air quality information system, Air Watch, within its Eye on Earth Portal. It displays near real-time measurements of concentrations of three air pollutants (ground-level ozone O3, particulate matter and nitrogen dioxide NO2) from approximately 1,000 monitoring stations in 32 countries, as well as updates from citizens.
Because ambient air concentrations and fallout can vary across short ranges within Europe, the EEA also advises the public to refer to national or local air quality authorities, which may have additional or new information on local conditions. Detailed information on national and local data providers is also available via Eye on Earth.
.
.
END
Social Rights in Ireland – Why the Constant Struggle ?
Attention anybody who is screaming, struggling, protesting … being forced to revolt against an unjust and uncaring ‘system’ … so that Vulnerable Individuals and Groups … older people, children, people with disabilities, the homeless, etc., etc., etc … will be treated with dignity, equality and respect in our society … Ireland and the European Union. Pinch yourselves … we are Irish and Europeans !
It is helpful, as an introduction, if a distinction is made between human rights and social rights …
Social Rights: Rights to which an individual person is legally entitled, e.g. the right to free elementary education [Art.26(1), 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights], but which are only exercised in a social context with other people, and with the active support of a competent legal authority, e.g. a Nation State.
Commentary: In contrast to Human Rights, it is not protection from the State which is desired or achieved, but freedom with the State’s help.
Social Rights, as distinguished here, include and extend beyond current understandings of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights.
.
Early in the year 2000 … the European Parliament issued a Working Paper (reference PE 168.629) with the title: ‘Fundamental Social Rights in Europe’. The authors were Mark Eric Butt, Julia Kübert and Christiane Anne Schultz. The manuscript was completed in November 1999.
Without getting into the fine detail of the Working Paper … the following Table, on Page 31, is very enlightening …
Click to enlarge this Table.
In the Working Paper, the Table is explained …
‘ The following Table is an overview of the contents of the Member States’ constitutions. It shows what fundamental social rights are enshrined in the constitutions. It is impossible, however, to forge a link between the existence of fundamental social rights and the existence and level of social benefits and institutions in the Member States concerned. This is clear, primarily, from Austria and Great Britain, their columns being empty – whereas they do, of course, have social rights.
The symbol … simple black box … in the table means that the right concerned is referred to in the constitution. The other symbol … shadowed white box … means that, though not explicitly enshrined in the constitution, it is recognised.’
The Countries are listed in the order … Belgium (B), Denmark (DK), Germany (D), Greece (GR), Spain (E), France (F), Ireland (IRL), Italy (I), Luxembourg (L), The Netherlands (NL), Austria (A), Portugal (P), Finland (FIN), Sweden (S) and Great Britain (UK).
.
Now … compare and contrast … paying particular attention to Ireland …
Interesting … isn’t it ?
.
.
END
‘Climate’ Politics – From 2007 Consensus to 2009 Fracture ?
The 2007 UNFCCC Climate Summit held in Bali, Indonesia, from 3rd-15th December … resulted in a strong global consensus in favour of immediate and concerted action on climate change … and a sharply worded document, the 2007 Bali Action Plan … key parts of which state …
‘ The Conference of the Parties,
Resolving to urgently enhance implementation of the Convention in order to achieve its ultimate objective in full accordance with its principles and commitments ;
Reaffirming that economic and social development and poverty eradication are global priorities ; …
Recognizing that deep cuts in global emissions will be required to achieve the ultimate objective of the Convention and emphasizing the urgency to address climate change as indicated in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ;
1. Decides to launch a comprehensive process to enable the full, effective and sustained implementation of the Convention through long-term cooperative action, now, up to and beyond 2012, in order to reach an agreed outcome and adopt a decision at its fifteenth session, by addressing …
(a) A shared vision for long-term co-operative action, including a long-term global goal for emission reductions … in accordance with the provisions and principles of the Convention, in particular the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities ;
(b) Enhanced national/international action on mitigation of climate change …
(c) Enhanced action on adaptation …
(d) Enhanced action on technology development and transfer to support action on mitigation and adaptation …
(e) Enhanced action on the provision of financial resources and investment to support action on mitigation and adaptation and technology co-operation … ‘
.
Just a few weeks later, on 12th February 2008, in New York … Ambassador John Ashe, Permanent Representative of Antigua & Barbuda to the United Nations, delivered an Important Statement on behalf of the Group of 77 & China (comprising 130 countries) … at the Thematic Debate of the U.N. General Assembly: ‘Addressing Climate Change – The United Nations and the World at Work’. Fully reflecting and supporting the Bali Action Plan, this Statement clearly set out the Climate Change Priorities for the Developing and Least Developed Countries, including the Small Island Developing States (SIDS). It included the following important extract …
‘ Climate Change as a Sustainable Development Challenge
5. Mr. President, the Group of 77 and China is of the view that discussions on climate change should be placed within the proper context of sustainable development. It is imperative that our discussion reinforces the promotion of sustainable development …
6. We must not lose sight of the fact that climate change is a sustainable development challenge. As such we should adhere steadfastly to the Rio principles, in particular the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities. We must take fully into account that poverty eradication, economic and social development are the paramount priorities of developing countries …
7. Mr. President, urgent action is needed now to fully implement the commitments under the Convention and the Kyoto Protocol, especially commitments on financing for adaptation, technology transfer and capacity building, if we are to make progress towards the achievement of the sustainable development goals of developing countries …
8. Urgent action is particularly needed on commitments, as climate change threatens the livelihoods of the very poor and vulnerable developing countries, in particular Africa, the Least Developed Countries, the Land-Locked Least Developed Countries, Small Island Developing States, and disaster prone developing countries. The G77 and China is of the view that while addressing the challenge of climate, the most affected countries and most vulnerable countries should be given adequate attention and support.
9. Developed countries Parties must take the lead in addressing the implementation gap, since the extent to which developing countries Parties can effectively respond to the challenge depends on the effective implementation by developed country Parties of their commitments relating to financing and technology transfer.’
.
The Developed Countries, i.e. those listed in Annex I of the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, did not listen to the words of John Ashe. This helps to explain the Fracture of the 2007 Bali Consensus at Copenhagen, in December 2009 … the sharp division between the ‘have’s’ and the ‘have-not’s’ of our small planet.
Within Developed Countries … there may be a certain comfort, at an intellectual level, in linking Sustainable Development and Climate Change. However, in vulnerable Developing Countries this link is critical … where poverty eradication, and economic and social development are paramount priorities. All are ‘responsible needs’ which are clearly specified and supported by International Law. Yet, the Developed Countries persist in disregarding their legal obligations under Articles 2.3 and 3.14 of the 1997 UNFCCC Kyoto Protocol … and, more importantly, evading their historical responsibility for causing the problem of Anthropogenic Climate Change in the first place.
Closer to home, in the European Union Member States, far too much emphasis is being placed on fully exploiting the various ‘flexibility mechanisms’ within the UNFCCC Process … rather than on direct and proper compliance with their individual Kyoto Mitigation Commitments. There is little or no interest in Adaptation. Meanwhile, the reality shown by the latest analysis of observations from the World Meteorological Organization’s Global Atmosphere Watch (GAW) Programme is that the globally averaged mixing ratios of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) reached new highs in 2008 with CO2 at 385.2 parts per million, CH4 at 1797 parts per billion (ppb) and N2O at 321.8 ppb … higher than those in pre-industrial times (before 1750) by 38%, 157% and 19%, respectively !
.
.
END
Towards a More Balanced View of the World ?
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Summit, which was held in Denmark from 7th-19th December 2009 … should be a very loud wake-up call for Europeans. When the ‘real’ political action was taking place towards the end of the Summit … the European Union was out to lunch … nowhere to be seen … irrelevant to global events !!
The Fracture of the 2007 UNFCCC Bali Consensus at the 2009 Copenhagen Summit … the sharp division between the ‘have’s’ and the ‘have-not’s’ of our small planet … signals one more stage in the development of a process which, I believe, began back in September 2003 … when the World Trade Talks collapsed in Cancun, Mexico. At least, that’s when I noticed that the world’s political map was beginning to change dramatically. Geo-political adaptation ?
Anyway … I certainly was not happy with the Balance of the media reporting from Copenhagen. So, I have added Links which will bring news and views directly from other locations …
- Brazil, China, India, Russia, Venezuela, Turkey & Cuba ;
- The Arab World ;
- The ALBA Group of Countries in South America.
.
.
END
European Parliament’s URBAN InterGroup – Inaugural Meeting
On Wednesday afternoon, 24th February 2010, the URBAN InterGroup of the European Parliament met for the first time in the new Parliamentary Term … at 16.30 hrs … in Meeting Room 6Q2 of the Parliamentary Complex in Brussels, Belgium. Dr. Jan Olbrycht, Member of the European Parliament (MEP), chaired the proceedings. The attendance was large, and included a large proportion of the 50, or so, MEP’s who are directly involved with the InterGroup. Please forgive the jargon, but … many other URBAN InterGroup Partners, Sectoral Stakeholders and Interested Practitioners also attended. However … not one Irish MEP appears to show any interest in this important InterGroup. Why is that ?
Colour photograph showing the Inaugural Meeting of the European Parliament's URBAN InterGroup, in Brussels, on 24th February 2010. The Meeting, chaired by Mr. Jan Olbrycht MEP, had a large attendance. Click to enlarge. Photograph taken by CJ Walsh. 2010-02-24.
.
I was very pleased to attend this Meeting, representing Sustainable Design International Ltd. (a Multi-Disciplinary Design & Research Practice in Europe, and a Micro-SME). Further to a series of interventions on my part, the following are some Comments on last Wednesday’s Meeting … and a few Suggestions …
1. Accountable & Representative Governance is an important component in the implementation of Sustainable Human and Social Development. It is not being too ambitious, therefore, to say that the URBAN InterGroup has an important task to fulfil within the ‘system’ of the European Parliament.
2. Within such a ‘system’ … it is a big advantage that the InterGroup’s Structure is informal and fluid. This allows the InterGroup to be cross-party and cross-committee at the Parliament … and to adopt a ‘flexible’ horizontal approach to Urban-Related Issues.
3. This same Horizontal Approach must, however, be applied to a proper consideration of the Urban Environment (City) itself … which is far more than the sum of its buildings, public spaces, transport systems, engineering infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc.), and service utilities, etc., etc.
4. In order to deal effectively with Urban-Related Issues and the many different Sectoral Stakeholders … it is essential that the Intergroup discusses and develops a comprehensive and coherent vision of what exactly is a Sustainable Urban Environment (City). Please see the previous post on this Blog, dated 2010-03-02.
And … even though the regular InterGroup Meetings will be of short duration … it will be of great benefit to link small, individual issues to that larger, coherent vision. Then, and only then, will the InterGroup always know where it is … and, more importantly, in which direction it is travelling … in order to monitor progress.
5. It was not clear to me, at the Meeting, that the significant differences between the words ‘Sustainable’ and ‘Green’ are fully understood. This will cause problems for the InterGroup in the future, and should be examined in more detail.
The European Union (E.U.) Treaties refer to ‘Sustainable Development’ … not to ‘Greenness’ !!
6. It was also evident, at the Meeting, that there is a Lack of Communication between the European Parliament and the European Commission on Urban-Related Issues. Let me immediately say, however, that there is a worrying lack of communication (on any issue !) between the different Directorates-General within the Commission.
It must be a Priority for the InterGroup … a difficult one, I know … to have direct access to available Urban-Related Information … across all of the European Union’s Institutions. It is too wasteful of the InterGroup’s limited resources to be required to ‘re-invent wheels’ !
7. With regard to the URBAN InterGroup’s Work Programme … it is necessary to add a specific mention of the following Two Subjects:
(i) Proactive Climate Change Adaptation
Climate Change Adaptation, generally, encompasses actions to reduce the vulnerability and strengthen the resilience of the Human Environment, including ecological and social systems, institutions and economic sectors … to present and future adverse effects of climate change and the impacts of response measure implementation … in order to minimize the threats to life, human health, livelihoods, food security, assets, amenities, ecosystems and sustainable development.
Urban Environment Climate Change Adaptation, more precisely, means … reliably implementing policies, practices, projects and institutional reforms in the Urban Environment (City) … with the aim of reducing the adverse impacts and/or realizing the benefits directly/indirectly associated with climate change, including variability and extremes … in a manner which is compatible with Sustainable Human and Social Development.
Following detailed briefing meetings, in Dublin, from high-level participants in Copenhagen … the suggestion of this subject arises from what happened … or, more correctly, did not happen … to the European Union and its inadequate Climate Change Policies at the 2009 Climate Summit in December.
(ii) Accessibility for People with Activity Limitations (Personnes à Performances Réduites)
The 2006 United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities entered into force on 3rd May 2008, i.e. it became an International Legal Instrument. European Union (E.U.) Member States are currently undertaking the process of ratifying this Convention at national level. At a certain stage in the near future, the Union (as a polity, post Lisbon Treaty) will certainly also ratify the Convention.
People with Activity Limitations now have a clearly defined right, under International Law, to be able to access and use the Urban Environment (City). They also have the right to receive an equal and meaningful consideration in situations of risk, e.g. when there is a fire in a building.
The InterGroup must fully take account of these rights ! This is no longer an option. In this regard and until now, the attitudes and performance of the E.U. Institutions has been nothing less than a complete and utter disgrace.
8. With regard to the Main Objectives of the URBAN InterGroup … it is necessary to add the following Preamble to those Objectives …
Adopting a long-term perspective, i.e. beyond the lifetime of any single parliamentary term … the Main Objectives of the InterGroup are to:
- monitor the legislative and non-legislative work of the European Parliament’s Committees on Urban-Related Issues ;
- work on common European Union Strategies – to put Urban Needs on the agenda of E.U. Policies ;
- be actively involved in the preparation of E.U. legislation ;
- constantly stay in contact with partners and practitioners ;
- be informed about the realization of E.U. Policies on the ground.
Please note well … that the short-term perspective of elected politicians, whether at European, National or Local Levels, is a Serious Impediment to the proper implementation of a Sustainable Urban Environment (City) !
.
.
END
Sustainable Cities – The Driver to Forge a ‘Creative’ Society ?
Dr. Craig Barrett, Chair (2005-2009) of Intel Corporation’s Board, recently dropped some sharp home truths onto our frail and sensitive Irish laps … concerning national competitiveness in the Global Economic Environment. It was like a breath of fresh air ! And … how right he was !!
Today, however, I want to focus on just one of his themes …
Quality Education + Quality Research & Development + Facilitating and Fostering Creativity & Innovation in Society
Since the 1990′s … we have had to listen to endless amounts of bullshit and hot air … until we are blue in the face … about the Information Society, the Knowledge Society, the Smart Society, the Green Society [what is 'Green' anyway ?], etc., etc., etc … and the biggest anti-climax of them all … the European Union’s Lisbon Strategy … boring, boring, boring !!!!
.
When you hit the bottom of the barrel, there is only one place to look … and that’s up … with an engaged mind feverishly picturing what’s around outside ! So … for one wild moment, let’s join together some nice ideas …
Could Sustainable Cities be that essential driving force which forges a ‘Creative’ Society ???
What is the Sustainable Urban Environment (City) ? A geographical region, with open and flexible boundaries, consisting of:
- An interwoven, densely constructed core (built environment) ;
- A large resident population of more than 500,000 people (social environment) ;
- A supporting hinterland of lands, waters and other natural resources (cultivated or ‘wrought’ landscape) ;
And together functioning as …
- A complex living system (analogous to, yet different from, other living systems such as ecosystems and organisms) ; and
- A synergetic community capable of providing a high level of individual welfare and social wellbeing for all of its inhabitants.
Our Ultimate Goal must be to achieve a dynamic and harmonious balance between a sustainable ‘human’ environment and a flourishing, not just a surviving, ‘natural’ environment … with the Overall Aim of achieving social wellbeing for all.
Sustainable Design Solutions must be appropriate to local geography, climate and future climate changes, economy, culture, social need and language(s)/dialect(s).
.
Supporting Definitions
Human Environment: Anywhere there is, or has been, an intrusion by a human being in the ‘natural’ environment.
Built Environment: Anywhere there is, or has been, a man-made or wrought (worked) intervention by humans in the ‘natural’ environment, e.g. cities, towns, villages, rural settlements, services, transport systems, roads, bridges, tunnels, and cultivated lands, lakes, rivers, coasts, and seas, etc … including the ‘virtual’ environment.
Social Environment: The complex network of real and virtual human interaction – at a communal or larger group level – which operates for reasons of tradition, culture, business, pleasure, information exchange, institutional organization, legal procedure, governance, human betterment, social progress and spiritual enlightenment, etc.
The ‘social’ environment shapes, binds together, and directs the future development of, the ‘built’ (including ‘virtual’) environment.
Economic Environment: The intricate web of real and virtual human commercial activity – operating at micro and macro-economic levels – which facilitates, supports, but sometimes hampers or disrupts, human interaction in the ‘social’ environment.
Virtual Environment: A designed environment, electronically-generated from within the ‘built’ environment, which may have the appearance, form, functionality and impact – to the person perceiving and actually experiencing it – of a real, imagined and/or utopian world.
Human Health: A state of complete physical, mental and social wellbeing, and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity. (World Health Organization)
Individual Welfare: A person’s general feeling of health, happiness and fulfilment.
Social Wellbeing: A general condition – in a community, society or culture – of health, happiness, creativity, responsible fulfilment, and sustainable development.
Sustainable Human & Social Development: Development which meets the responsible needs, i.e. the Human & Social Rights*, of this generation – without stealing the life and living resources from future generations, especially our children … and their children.
*As defined, in International Law, by the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UN OHCHR).
Sustainable Design*: The ethical design response, in built or wrought form, to the concept of Sustainable Human and Social Development.
*Includes Spatial Planning, Architectural / Engineering / Interior / Industrial Design and e-Design, etc.
.
.
END
Accessibility-for-All at the Brussels European Parliament ?!?!
Last Wednesday (2010-02-24), I was very pleased to be in Brussels to attend the Inaugural Meeting of the European Parliament’s URBAN InterGroup for the New Parliamentary Term. Being very curious, however, there was no way … no way at all … that I could enter the Parliament Building without checking on a specific part of the Early Parliamentary Complex on Rue Wiertz … for any improvements to its past, woeful ‘accessibility’ performance. Please note that I am not referring, here, to transport issues … but to ‘accessibility’ for people with activity limitations.
.
Colour photograph showing the same dangerous external ramp/stair combination near the Main Public Entrance to the European Parliament Building, on Rue Wiertz, in Brussels. During rush hour periods of the working day, this ramp/stair combination is a very busy public pedestrian route. Click to enlarge. This photograph taken by CJ Walsh. 2010-02-24. For more photographs of this architectural 'gem', dating from 2000-2001, see SDI's Corporate WebSite.
.
Since the 2006 United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities became an International Legal Instrument on 3rd May 2008 … people with activity limitations now have a clearly defined right, under international law, to be able to access and use the Built Environment. They also have the right to receive an equal and meaningful consideration in situations of risk, e.g. when there is a fire in a building. The language of the Convention is unusually strong.
Once upon a time … 9 or 10 years ago … at the beginning of this decade/century/millennium … a Properly Accessible Built Environment could only be wishful thinking. Yes, there was some legislation … usually very weak … at national level in the E.U. Member States … but nobody paid much attention to implementation. The least that could be expected, however, was that Iconic Buildings purposefully intended and designed for occupation by Institutions of the European Union would be examples of ‘good accessibility’ … as so much emphasis has always been placed in the E.U. Treaties, including the New Lisbon Treaty … on the foundation of the European Union being robustly rooted in Human and Social Rights for All … not just a privileged few, or a self-contented majority.
At this Page on Sustainable Design International’s Corporate WebSite … www.sustainable-design.ie/arch/inaccesseubuildings.htm … I recorded the dismal and depressing evidence on the ‘inaccessibility’ of both the Brussels and Strasbourg Parliament Buildings at that time.
.
Colour photograph showing the 'special' entrance reserved for 'personnes a mobilite reduite' in another part of the Brussels European Parliamentary Complex. It's too bad if someone who must use this facility cannot understand the incorrectly printed French ! Click to enlarge. Photograph taken by CJ Walsh. 2010-02-24.
.
So … what has changed in the intervening years ? Have there been any improvements to a situation which I originally described as being ‘stupid and ridiculous’ ? [I won't bore you with all of the reasons why.] Or, are things worse ? Have we, in fact, entered into some unknown region of The Twilight Zone ? Arise again GUBU (Grotesque, Unbelievable, Bizarre and Unprecedented) !!
.
Colour photograph showing the Main Entrances associated with the 'special' entrance in the photograph above. They are located approximately 10 metres around the corner on a different side of the building. If the nosings of those steps have been highlighted in yellow, does that mean that these clumsy entrances are 'safe' ?? Click to enlarge. Photograph taken by CJ Walsh. 2010-02-24.
.
Pinch yourselves, a few times, as you examine the photographs closely ! Try to remember that these buildings are not renovated or refurbished existing buildings. They were all designed and constructed, as ‘new’, on cleared sites within the city !!
.
Although Architects, the Brussels Local Authorities and the E.U. Institutions are primarily responsible for ‘inaccessibility’ of the Brussels European Parliament Building … we cannot afford to be smug or complacent in Ireland. Just look around you !
Again, once upon a time … towards the end of the 1980′s this time … I submitted the following Proposal for a Resolution on Accessibility-for-All to the Council of the Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland (RIAI) … please forgive the pre 2001 WHO ICF use of language and terminology …
Preamble
The elimination of architectural barriers to mobility of the disabled is an essential and preliminary condition for successful implementation of the principal that all people should be fully integrated into society, participating in and contributing to all aspects of economic and social life.
Resolution
Celebrating the 150th year of its establishment, Council of the Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland asks all Members:-
(i) to note the principal that all people should be fully integrated into society, participating in and contributing to all aspects of economic and social life ;
(ii) to eliminate as far as reasonably practicable, in the design of buildings, architectural barriers to mobility of the disabled.
Was this Resolution passed ? I’ll give you one guess ! The reason given, at the time, was that the Profession might be viewed as being culpable … which it was … and remains to this day. The source of this culpability, however, is most definitely the Schools of Architecture.
.
.
END
Sustainable Climate Adaptation – The Post Copenhagen Priority !
[It was necessary to commence this post ... only after visiting India. See the first post of 2010-01-18.]
Well … we really saw it all at Copenhagen during those two long weeks in December 2009. Wasn’t it great to watch ?!? News, gossip, political ’shenanigans’ and spin … along with riots in the streets and walk-outs in the corridors … a veritable circus … an unmitigated farce !!! A crime against humanity ????
Following the UNFCCC Summit … the PEW Center on Global Climate Change, in the USA (using their own words: an independent, non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to providing credible information, straight answers, and innovative solutions to address climate change), offered this ‘credible information’ …
‘ A new political accord struck by world leaders at the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen provides for explicit emission pledges by all the major economies – including, for the first time, China and other major developing countries – but charts no clear path toward a treaty with binding commitments.
The basic terms of the Copenhagen Accord were brokered directly by President Obama and a handful of key developing country leaders on the final day of the conference, capping two weeks of harsh rhetoric and pitched procedural battles that made the prospect of any agreement highly uncertain. It then took nearly another full day of tense negotiations to arrive at a procedural compromise allowing the leaders’ deal to be formalized over the bitter objections of a few governments.
… ‘
Now compare this News Article, by Satyen Mohapatra, from the Hindustan Times, New Delhi, India … dated Saturday, 9th January 2010 …
India Brought China Onboard at Copenhagen
New Delhi: Environment & Foreign Minister Jairam Ramesh, on Friday, said India had brought China onboard at Copenhagen.
“India brought China onboard at Copenhagen. The U.S. actually owes a lot to India”, he said here at an interaction.
Despite taking a leadership role during the negotiations, Ramesh said, the Chinese were not ready to talk directly with the US, but always as part of the BASIC (Brazil, South Africa, India and China) Group.
Recounting how the Accord was reached at Copenhagen, Ramesh said it was “floundering on three issues: whether the goal of arresting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2050 should be expressed in terms of temperature or emission reduction or concentration of GHG in the atmosphere; what would be the international monitoring and verification regime for the mitigation actions of the BASIC countries; and whether the Accord would be legally binding”.
“We got 2.5 out of three”, he added.
And then … consider the opening of a statement by Bruno Rodriguez Parrilla, Cuban Minister for Foreign Affairs, at the last session of the Climate Summit on Friday, 18th December 2009 …
Mr. Chairman:
It has been four hours since President Obama announced an agreement that does not exist. He is disrespecting the international community and behaving as an imperial master.
The document that you, Mr. Chairman, repeatedly claimed that did not exist is showing up now. We have all seen drafts surreptitiously circulated and discussed in secret meetings, outside the rooms where the international community has been transparently negotiating through its representatives.
As it happens, Mr. Chairman, the non-existent document does exist. I deeply regret the way you have conducted the works of this conference.
I can anticipate that the delegation from the Republic of Cuba has decided not to accept the declaration you are introducing. I do not need any additional consultation in any other framework or format; therefore, I declare that at this conference there is no consensus on this document.
I add my voice to that of the representatives of Tuvalu, Venezuela and Bolivia. Cuba considers the text of this apocryphal draft extremely insufficient and inadmissible. The unacceptable goal of 2 degrees Centigrade would have incalculable catastrophic consequences, particularly for the small island nations. It would also have a grave impact on numerous species of the biodiversity.
The document that you are unfortunately introducing contains no commitment whatsoever on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
I am aware of the previous drafts, which again through questionable and clandestine procedures, were negotiated in small groups and which at least made reference to a 50% reduction by 2050. I have here with me those previous drafts that it would be worthwhile making public in this room and releasing to the media and the representatives of the civil society.
The document that you are introducing now leaves out precisely those already meagre and insufficient key phrases contained in those drafts. This document does not guarantee, in any way, the adoption of minimal measures conducive to the prevention of an extremely grave catastrophe for the planet and for human beings.
To Cuba, the content of this document is incompatible with the universally recognized scientific criterion which deems it urgent and unavoidable to ensure at least a 45% reduction of emissions by the year 2020, and no less that 80% or 90% by 2050.
This shameful document that you bring to us is also insufficient and ambiguous with regards to the specific commitment of the developed countries to reduce emissions even when they are responsible for the global warming resulting from the historic and current level of their emissions, and it is only fit that they undertake meaningful reductions right away. This document fails to mention any commitment by the developed nations.
…
Confused ? Depressed ?? Frustrated ???
.
Some Observations from the 2009 UNFCCC Copenhagen Climate Summit:
1. The 2009 Copenhagen Accord is a voluntary political agreement among a small number of countries … an arrangement of convenience. It has no status within the international framework of the 1992 Convention on Climate Change and the 1997 Kyoto Protocol … it is a non-document. It does, however, provide political cover for Brazil, South Africa, India and China (BASIC) … along with the USA … whose politicians have no wish to be bound by legally binding, meaningful GHG Emission Reduction Targets benchmarked back to 1990 levels … most especially, GHG Emission Reductions which would be stringently and independently verified by competent external agencies. The Accord also has the potential, within it, to derail the entire UNFCCC process.
The Accord is not, therefore, being presented on this WebSite.
2. The Developed Countries (i.e. the 1992 UNFCCC Annex I Countries) demonstrated that they had a small understanding of, but very little sympathy for, the concepts of ‘equity’, ‘fairness’, ‘historical responsibility’ and ‘climate justice’.
3. It is now clear that the European Union’s Climate Change Targets of (i) a maximum 2 degree Celsius rise in global temperature is too high … a maximum 1.5 degree Celsius rise should be the target, with an essential reference to a ‘safety factor’ in all calculations … and (ii) a 20% Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emission Reduction by 2020 is far too low. The time for playing games with numbers is over … GHG Emission Reductions by the EU Member States should be open to stringent and independent/external verification … not just by the European Commission (which is insufficient, on its own, in this particular case) … but also by competent indigenous agencies in the BASIC Group of Countries. To heal the rifts at Copenhagen … greater openness and transparency is required from Europe !!
Spinning of EU GHG Emission Reduction Performance by the European Environment Agency (EEA) … to make it appear that Europeans are doing more, and better, than we actually are … should be firmly knocked on the head, i.e. forbidden !
And in Ireland, to bring this subject closer to home, we urgently need to find another home … one central location, properly managed … for the relevant/related GHG Databases currently held by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Energy Ireland (SEI). Here … let us recall a pertinent extract from the European Union Treaties … ‘statistics shall conform to impartiality, reliability, objectivity, scientific independence, cost-effectiveness and statistical confidentiality’. This issue has been discussed in previous posts. So … say no more !!!!
4. Developed Countries continue to show a feigned interest in Climate Change Adaptation. Too much of their energies and resources are still being directed at fully exploiting the ‘flexibilities’ in meeting Kyoto GHG Emission Reduction Targets. They are wealthy enough … and they believe (mistakenly) that they possess all of the institutional capacities necessary to deal with any adverse impacts caused by Climate Change, including Variability and Extremes. We have found recently in Ireland, however, during the National Major Flood and Snow Emergencies that we certainly do not have these capacities. If anything, we now know that the relevant institutions in this country are incompetent, disorganized and dysfunctional.
Bearing in mind that the minimum life cycle for a Sustainable Building (just to take one important component of the Built Environment) is 100 years … the abject failure to reach a legally binding consensus agreement at Copenhagen … means that National Adaptation Strategies must now be planned and formulated … urgently … on the basis of, at the very least, a 3-4 degree Celsius rise in global temperature.
.
What is Climate Change Adaptation ?
This encompasses, generally, all actions to reduce the vulnerability and strengthen the resilience of the Human Environment, including ecological and social systems, institutions and economic sectors … to present and future adverse effects of climate change and the impacts of response measure implementation … in order to minimize the threats to life, human health, livelihoods, food security, assets, amenities, ecosystems and sustainable development.
Built Environment Climate Change Adaptation, more specifically, means … reliably implementing policies, practices, projects and institutional reforms in the Built Environment … with the aim of reducing the adverse impacts and/or realizing the benefits directly/indirectly associated with climate change, including variability and extremes … in a manner which is compatible with Sustainable Human and Social Development.
Many opportunities can arise from Adaptation.
.
Why is a Sustainable Approach to Climate Change Adaptation Necessary ?
As an example and very briefly …
In Ireland, it has been proposed as an Adaptation Project … to divert water from the Shannon, a very large river in the west of the country … to Dublin, the capital city, which is located on the east coast … in order to deal with the expected shortage of water which will be caused by Climate Change in the medium term … among other factors.
“Fine”, you might say … and you may later add: “an interesting civil engineering infrastructural project”, as you visualize, in your mind’s eye, impressive Roman Aqueducts in the south of France or outside Rome.
BUT … if you then consider that there are no residential water charges in Dublin (so the concept of water conservation is almost unknown among householders); water supplied to houses in the Dublin Region are not yet metered (so there is no urgency to locate and deal with water leakage inside the private property boundary); there are enormous unintended losses, i.e. leaks, from the public potable water distribution system (approximately 40% even in the good times, and recently well in excess of 60% following the National Snow Emergency !); there are no requirements in our National Building Regulations to harvest any rainwater in any buildings or on any hard surfaces in the vicinity of those buildings … and, finally, Sustainability Impact Assessment (SIA) is not yet a standard procedure, at any level, within National and Local Authorities Having Jurisdiction.
So … just how ‘sustainable’, in reality, is the Shannon-Dublin Water Diversion Scheme as a Climate Change Adaptation Project ???
.
.
END
Search
Recent Comments
- 'Climate' Politics – From 2007 Consensus to 2009 Fracture ? | 'A … | Indonesia Day on ‘Climate’ Politics – From 2007 Consensus to 2009 Fracture ?
- Catherine on Murphy Commission Report on Child Sexual Abuse in Dublin
- Sustainable Climate Adaptation – 2008 G-77 Statement to the UN … | Algeria news on Sustainable Climate Adaptation – 2008 G-77 Statement to the UN
- Harmonized Indicators of Building GHG & Energy Performance | 'A … | Go Low Energy on Harmonized Indicators of Building GHG & Energy Performance
- Older People in Emergencies – Action & Policy Development (II … | DisabilityKit.Com on Older People in Emergencies – Action & Policy Development (II)
Categories
- architecture
- art
- built environment
- cinema
- climate change
- economic environment
- eu law
- european union
- fire
- human & social rights
- human environment
- human health
- institutions
- international law
- judicial
- media
- national law
- natural environment
- photography
- politics
- regulations & standards
- social environment
- sustainability
- technical control
- travel
- virtual environment
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Jun | ||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
Links
- 'Spirit of Ireland' Project – National Energy Independence. At last … some 'real' Innovation in this country !
- 2bscene Web Design – Ireland
- AL JAZEERA – News & Views from the ARAB WORLD (1431 H)
- ALBA – Alianza Bolivariana para los Pueblos de Nuestra América / Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America
- Amnesty International – Irish Section
- CJ Walsh: Architectural, Design & Technical Control Practice (Ireland, Italy & Turkey)
- Contact Us – Sustainable Design International Ltd. (Ireland, Italy & Turkey)
- Cuba Support Group – Ireland
- Department of the Environment, Heritage & Local Government (DEHLG) – Ireland
- E-PRTR – European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register … a Europe-wide register providing easily accessible key environmental data from industrial facilities in EU Member States and in Iceland, Liechtenstein & Norway.
- EL NACIONAL – News & Views from VENEZUELA
- EU Fundamental Rights Agency – The Agency focuses on the situation of fundamental rights in the European Union (EU) and its 27 Member States.
- EUR-Lex – Full, direct and free access to all European Union (EU) Legislation
- FireOx International – Ireland, Italy & Turkey
- GRANMA INTERNACIONAL – News & Views from CUBA
- HÜRRİYET – News & Views from TURKEY
- Ireland – Information about our Public Institutions, including Pretty Pictures of our green countryside !
- James Taylor – Singer & Songwriter
- JOURNAL DE BRASÍLIA – News & Views from BRAZIL
- Kanchi (Ireland) – Changing Society's View of Disability for the Better
- NAVBHARAT TIMES – News & Views (in Hindi) from INDIA
- PRAVDA – News & Views from RUSSIA
- Robert F Kennedy Centre for Justice & Human Rights (USA)
- Rocky Mountain Institute (USA) – Super Energy Efficiency by Design
- RTE Lyric FM – Classical (in its widest meaning !) Music on Irish Radio
- Senator Shane Ross – Ireland's Principal Economics Troubleshooter. What happened to George ?
- Survivors of Institutional Abuse Ireland [SOIAI] – WE (collectively) did not cherish all the children of OUR nation equally !
- Sustainable Design International – Ireland, Italy & Turkey
- Tom Doyle's Blog :: TALK
- UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) + Kyoto Protocol + COP-15
- United Nations Human Rights Council – Established 15 March 2006
- WISE – Water Information System for Europe … a single location (portal) where geographically-mapped information on water-related issues can be found for the whole of Europe.
- XINHUA News Agency – News & Views from CHINA