politics
How ‘Sustainable’ are Built Environment Adaptation Projects ?
The Inter-Basin Water Transfer Project from Lough Ree, on the River Shannon, to Dublin City, in Ireland, has been described as a Pilot Adaptation Project on the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) WebSite Database relating to the Nairobi Work Programme (2005-2010).
I did not imagine this … please check out the listing, for yourselves, on this WebPage … www.unfccc.int/adaptation/nairobi_work_programme/knowledge_resources_and_publications/items/4555.php?sort=focus_sort&dirc=DESC&seite=1&anf=0&type=®ion=&focus=&means=
Detailed information concerning the Project can be accessed and downloaded at this Irish Address: www.watersupplyproject-dublinregion.ie It will cost approximately €600 million (probably much more !) … devour many material resources and have an adverse environmental impact … the objective being to divert water from the Shannon, a large river in the mid-west of the country … to Dublin, the capital city, which is located over 100 kilometres away on the east coast … in order to deal with the expected shortage of water which will be caused, among other relevant factors, by future climate change.
.
Colour image showing the many options for a future Dublin Region Water Supply Project ... linking the River Shannon, and its lakes ... to the Capital City, which is over 100 kilometres away on the east coast. Click to enlarge.
.
BUT … just how Sustainable is this Climate Change Adaptation Project … if the following other relevant factors are considered ?????
1. Since the 1960′s … a dysfunctional and corrupt Spatial Planning System in the Dublin City Region has actively encouraged an uncontrolled, urban and suburban horizontal sprawl to take place. Today, this pattern of development remains unchecked.
2. At this time, there are still no Residential Water Charges in Dublin. The concept of water conservation is, therefore, almost unknown among householders. National and local politicians are terrified by any prospect of having to vote in favour of imposing these necessary charges.
3. There are enormous un-intended losses, i.e. Leaks, from the public mains potable/drinking water distribution system … approximately 40% even in the good times, and recently, well in excess of 60% following the National Snow Emergency in Ireland.
4. Potable/drinking water supplied to houses in the Dublin City Region is not yet Metered. There is no urgency, therefore, in locating and repairing water leaks which occur between the private property boundary of a house and the house itself.
5. There is no existing legal requirement in Ireland’s National Building Regulations to Harvest Rainwater in any buildings, or on any hard surfaces in the vicinity of those buildings. A current proposal to amend Technical Guidance Document H: ‘Drainage & Waste Water Disposal’ will merely present relevant guidance text to building designers concerning this option.
Furthermore, there is no effective System of Technical Control operated by the Local Authorities in the City Region … to enforce a legal requirement concerning rainwater harvesting … even if such a legal requirement were to be introduced !
6. In 2005-2006, at the height of the Celtic Tiger Economic Boom … the existing Foul and Storm Water Drainage Infrastructure in the City Region was already stretched to keep pace with the ‘wild’ demands for new development land. Detailed information concerning the Greater Dublin Strategic Drainage Study can be accessed and downloaded at this Irish Address: www.dublincity.ie/WaterWasteEnvironment/WasteWater/Drainage/GreaterDublinStrategicDrainageStudy/Pages/RegionalDrainagePolicies-OverallPolicyDocument.aspx
Overloading of the existing drainage systems was evident from a marked deterioration in water quality, increased risks of flooding and pollution, and concerns that the drainage system and sewage treatment plants had insufficient capacity to cater for future development.
7. Sustainability Impact Assessment (SIA) …
‘ a continual evaluation and optimization assessment – informing initial decision-making, or design, and shaping activity/product/service realization, useful life and termination, or final disposal – of the interrelated positive and negative social, economic, environmental, institutional, political and legal impacts on balanced and equitable implementation of Sustainable Human & Social Development ‘
… is not yet a standard procedure, at any level, within national, regional and local Authorities Having Jurisdiction (AHJ’s). If it were, the most glaring flaw in this project would rapidly be identified. There is no comprehension at all, in the minds of Dublin City’s decision-makers, that water is a very valuable, but limited, resource !
.
Although today is 1st April 2010 … far too many people in senior policy and decision-making roles are giving solemn, unquestioning consideration to this Project.
To be successful, however, National Adaptation Strategies, Programmes and Projects must be informed, in a meaningful way, by the concept of Sustainable Human and Social Development … and, prior to implementation, must be filtered through the lens of a comprehensive Sustainability Impact Assessment (SIA) !
.
.
END
To Mitigate or Adapt – The Strategy for the Built Environment ?
Before the official announcement, in New York, of the independent InterAcademy Council (IAC) Review of the WMO/UNEP Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) … on 10th March 2010 … clear indications had been given, at meetings in the Institute of International and European Affairs (Dublin), that serious question marks hovered over the IPCC, its 2007 4th Assessment Report, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri’s position within the IPCC … the actions of many of the Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO’s) who were at Copenhagen during the 2009 UNFCCC Climate Change Summit … and the Science of Climate Change itself (refer, for example, to revelations following the hacking of e-mails and other data from a server in the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit in England, and the irregularities/errors in the IPCC’s 4th Assessment Report).
The 2009 Copenhagen Accord was a political agreement between a small number of Heads of State, Heads of Government, Ministers, and Heads of Delegation – Brazil, South Africa, India and China (BASIC) and the USA – who attended the Climate Summit, which concluded on Saturday, 19th December. At the time of writing, many countries have made voluntary submissions, i.e. they are not legally binding, to Appendices I and II of the Accord.
A general overview of the submissions made by Developed Countries, however, reveals the following about the Voluntary Emissions Targets being undertaken …
- they are highly conditional on the performance of other countries ;
- they are very disappointing, being far below what is required to cap the planetary temperature rise at 1.5 degrees Celsius ; and
- there is no consistent emission base year … varying from 1990 and 1992, up to 2000 and 2005.
This is very far from being a signal of serious intent from Developed Countries … and is not … in any way, shape or manner … an acceptance of historical responsibilities. It would be reasonable, therefore, to surmise that the process of achieving a global, legally binding, consensus agreement on greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction targets will be long and difficult. The Climate Change Mitigation Agenda is, to put it mildly, fraught with problems … and has an unclear future in the short term.
On the other hand, anyone involved in the design, construction, management or operation of the Built Environment must think ‘long-term’ … the minimum life cycle for a sustainable building should be at least 100 years. Today in Dublin, buildings which are 250 or 350 years old still look remarkably good, and are well capable of fulfilling an important function within the social and economic environments of the city. ‘Politically’ and ‘technically’, therefore, it would be more appropriate for the built environment if we were concerned with the Long-Term Climate Change Adaptation Agenda … rather than a problematic, short-term Mitigation Agenda. But, in terms of a building … is there really a clear difference between measures undertaken for the purpose of mitigation and those undertaken for adaptation ? For example, measures to incrementally improve energy efficiency and conserve energy, in accordance with short-term legally binding targets, will serve to mitigate CO2 emissions … but the same measures will also serve to adapt the building to rapidly dwindling supplies of climate-damaging fossil fuels. The long-term perspective will exert pressure for more radical actions in the short-term.
But, should we not already be undertaking these sorts of measures as part of the Mainstream Sustainability Agenda … in order to increase building durability and prolong life cycle ?
Generally … Climate Change Adaptation encompasses urgent and immediate short, near and long-term actions at local, national, regional and international levels 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 local threats to life, human health, livelihoods, food security, assets, amenities, ecosystems and sustainable development.
More specifically … Built Environment Climate Change Adaptation 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.
Climate Change Adaptation is one of the most important drivers for Sustainable Design !
.
.
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
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
Sustainable Climate Adaptation – 2008 G-77 Statement to the UN
How did the Developed Countries get everything so wrong in Copenhagen during December 2009 ? Why was the European Union irrelevant to what was taking place ? Were there no obvious signals … no straws in the wind … well in advance of the Climate Summit ?
Yes, there definitely were ! Almost two years beforehand !! Take a deep breath … and suck this up …
Statement on Behalf of the Group of 77 & China by Ambassador John Ashe, Permanent Representative of Antigua and Barbuda to the United Nations, at the Thematic Debate of the General Assembly on ‘Addressing Climate Change: The United Nations and The World at Work’ (New York, 12th February 2008)
Introduction
1. Mr. President, the Group of 77 & China thank you for convening this debate in the General Assembly on the theme ‘Addressing Climate Change: The United Nations and The World at Work’. It provides the Assembly with an additional opportunity to exchange views among Member States and with other partners on one of the important issues on the development agenda of the UN.
2. At the outset, the Group of 77 & China reiterates that the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change is, and should remain, the primary comprehensive framework for addressing climate change. Therefore, this thematic debate should be recognized as an opportunity for Member States to dialogue on ways of increasing support for the Framework and on meeting the urgent need for immediate action to fully implement commitments under the Convention and its Kyoto Protocol; supporting the Bali Action Plan and other mechanisms of the Convention.
3. Mr. President, the Group of 77 & China is of the view that there should not be a parallel process of debates that would detract from the negotiation process under the Convention. The Group of 77 & China believes that multilateral action to address climate change should remain firmly rooted in the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol.
4. Furthermore, this thematic debate, as well as the Secretary General’s report on the Overview of UN activities in relation to Climate Change should not attempt to influence any other processes such as the system wide coherence debate or the discussions on international environmental governance.
*** Climate Change as a Sustainable Development Challenge ***
5. Mr. President, the Group of 77 & 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, highlighting the three pillars – economic development, social development and environmental protection – and the need to promote all three in an integrated, co-ordinated and balanced manner.
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. Hence, we must ensure that the discussion on climate change is placed in its proper context so that it does not undermine the overall discourse on sustainable development.
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, in particular the Internationally Agreed Development Goals (IADG’s), including the Millennium Development Goals (MDG’s).
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 (LDC’s), Land-Locked Developing Countries (LLDC’s), Small Island Developing States (SIDS), and disaster prone developing countries. The G-77 & 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.
Scaling-Up Financing, Technology Transfer and Capacity Building Support
10. While the UN can support the efforts of developing countries in formulating policies for attracting climate change related investment flows, adaptation and nationally appropriate mitigation actions will have to be enabled by technology, financing and capacity-building that are commensurate with the magnitude of the tasks ahead of us, that is, in a measurable, reportable and verifiable manner, as agreed in the Bali Action Plan. The provision of financial resources is a binding commitment of developed country Parties. Clear guidance should be given to facilitate access to financial resources and investments without conditionalities. It is essential that such financial resources not be considered as Official Development Assistance (ODA), but additional, and in compliance with existing binding commitments under the Convention. Further, financing for adaptation to climate change and the impact of response measures should not be a reallocation or realignment of existing development financing.
11. Developing countries should be provided with greater access to cost-effective, efficient and affordable advanced clean technologies. The Group of 77 & China has repeatedly led calls for developing countries to have greater access to climate-friendly technologies. Efforts in this regard need to be scaled up. Furthermore, the UN can play an important role through the promotion of an Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Regime that facilitates the transfer of such technologies.
12. The Group of 77 & China reiterates its call for increased support for capacity building in developing countries to enhance national efforts to promote an integrated approach to climate change response measures and sustainable development planning.
Greater Support by the UN System for Developing Countries to Address the Climate Change Challenge
13. The UN’s efforts in supporting national adaptation activities must be strengthened, so that developing countries can achieve their sustainable development goals while responding to the challenges of climate change. The role of the UN in supporting the overall development efforts is vital. However, the G-77 & China finds that technology transfer and financing, have not been addressed adequately in the background documents made available in preparation for today’s debate.
14. On the issue of partnerships, Mr. President, the G-77 & China is of the view that multi-stakeholder partnerships have an important role to play in addressing climate change. The UN system should assist in fostering and promoting partnerships in support of national efforts. However, partnerships should not replace ODA or international co-operation.
15. Additionally, South-South co-operation is useful in the area of adaptation efforts, and greater support for South-South co-operation can also help developing countries better respond to the challenges of climate change. However, South-South co-operation should not be considered within the context of multi-stakeholder partnerships. Further, South-South co-operation on climate change should complement North-South co-operation.
Report on the Overview of UN Activities in Relation to Climate Change
16. Mr. President, in General Assembly Resolution 62/8 Member States requested a comprehensive report providing an overview of the activities of the UN system in relation to climate change. Based on this mandate the G-77 & China anticipated a factual report that takes stock of current UN system activities in this regard. As such, there is no mandate with regard to ‘an indication of the way forward’, and ‘co-ordination of the UN system action on climate change’. This remains the purview of the Member States to decide on. Work on co-ordination mechanisms, and structures or frameworks, including clusters of activity or lead agencies, must be subject of inter-governmental consideration and decision prior to implementation.
17. In general, the UN system entities should assist in the effective implementation of the provisions, commitments and action plans of the UNFCCC. Co-ordination of UN system activities to enhance its role in meeting the challenge of climate change requires inter-governmental consideration, agreement and oversight by Member States.
18. The G-77 & China recognizes the primacy of the UN in directing and supporting global efforts to meet the global challenge of climate change, and in supporting its Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The General Assembly, given its universality, should unequivocally urge Parties to undertake urgent action now to meet their commitments under the Convention, provide clear policy direction in this regard and to support to the Bali Plan of Action.
19. Mr. President, the G-77 & China believes that the road to Copenhagen, where the concluding talks on the current process on the Bali Roadmap will be held in 2009, will be a difficult one, particularly for developing countries and the poorest and most vulnerable. Leadership will therefore be critical if our response is to reflect the scale of the challenge. We need an effective and comprehensive global response, within the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, to cover adaptation, technology transfer and financing, as well as mitigation. Without rapid and tangible efforts by developed countries in this regard, climate change will lead to increased poverty and will negate our efforts at achieving sustainable development.
Thank you, Mr. President.
.
NOTE: The Group of 77 (G-77) was established on 15th June 1964 by seventy-seven developing countries – signatories of the ‘Joint Declaration of the Seventy-Seven Countries’, issued at the end of the first session of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) in Geneva. Beginning with the first Ministerial Meeting of the Group of 77 in Algiers (Algeria), from 10-25 October 1967, which adopted the ‘Charter of Algiers‘, a permanent institutional structure gradually developed which led to the creation of Chapters of the Group of 77, with Liaison Offices in Geneva (UNCTAD), Nairobi (UNEP), Paris (UNESCO), Rome (FAO/IFAD), Vienna (UNIDO), and the Group of 24 (G-24) in Washington, D.C. (IMF and World Bank). Although the Members of the G-77 have increased to 130 Countries, the original name was retained because of its historic significance.
Brazil, South Africa, India and China (BASIC) are all Members of G-77.
Bolivia, Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, Ecuador, and the Caribbean island states of Antigua and Barbuda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and Dominica (ALBA – Alianza Bolivariana para los Pueblos de Nuestra América / Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America) are also all Members of G-77.
The Group of 77 (G-77) WebSite is located at … www.g77.org
.
.
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
The Recent Major Emergency Response Fiascos in Ireland
Unless you have been living, for the past two or three months, in conditions similar to a detainee in the illegally occupied part of Cuba, called Guantánamo Bay … and you have been deprived of almost all sensory perception … you cannot have escaped (!) the fact that we have had a Major National Flood Emergency … followed by a Major National Snow Emergency … followed, again, by a National Flood & Water Emergency. I kid you not !!! But … the emergencies haven’t yet ended. And … it’s not just the politicians … at national and local levels … who should bury their heads in shame.
It has been amply demonstrated that the relevant emergency-related institutions in this country are incompetent, disorganized and dysfunctional. Focus your venomous attentions, as well, on the civil and public servants, administrative and technical staff, and private sector technical consultants who occupy space in these institutions.
Did you know that we actually have a National Directorate for Fire & Emergency Management (NDFEM), which is located deep within the Custom House … in the centre of Dublin City. According to the NDFEM, a Major Emergency is …
‘ An incident which, usually with little or no warning, causes or threatens death or injury, serious disruption of essential services or damage to property, the environment or infrastructure … beyond the normal capabilities of the principal emergency services (An Garda Síochána, the Ambulance Service and the Fire Service) in the area in which the event occurs.’
Pages dedicated to NDFEM can be found on the Department of the Environment, Heritage & Local Government (DEHLG) WebSite … www.environ.ie
From the DEHLG HomePage, follow the link to the National Directorate for Fire & Emergency Management.
Please read … without laughing, crying, screaming out loud in utter frustration, or any combination thereof … about the NDFEM’s Mandate and Structure here … www.environ.ie/en/LocalGovernment/NationalDirectorateforFireandEmergencyManagement
Then … and only if you are brave enough … check out the Bozos, Wasters and Lúdramáns who sit on the NDFEM’s Management Board here … www.environ.ie/en/LocalGovernment/NationalDirectorateforFireandEmergencyManagement/ManagementBoard … and the NDFEM’s Consultative Committee here … www.environ.ie/en/LocalGovernment/NationalDirectorateforFireandEmergencyManagement/ConsultativeCommittee
Prize specimens ! At least we can get rid of politicians at the next elections !!
.
.
END
Yesterday’s Burj Dubai Inauguration – The Tallest ?? How ?
Yesterday (2010-01-04), the Burj Dubai … recently renamed the Burj Khalifa, in honour of Abu Dhabi’s Ruler … was inaugurated. Dubayy, as it is known locally, is situated in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Contrary to most reports, this building has a height of approximately 550 metres !
Colour photograph of the Burj Khalifa Tower in Dubayy, United Arab Emirates ... which was recently inaugurated on 4th January 2010. A romantic image, for now, of the World's Tallest Building. But ... how 'sustainable' ... and 'fire safe' ... is this building ? Click to enlarge.
Every single metre counts in the race of the ‘tallest’ ! So, the timing of the following CTBUH(USA) Press Announcement, back in November 2009, was most fortunate. In my opinion, the most meaningful height criterion is … Height to Occupied Floor. But, what do you think ? See below.
However … purposefully tripping you up as you race to read all about the height criteria of Tall and Super-Tall Buildings … we should all know and understand, I hope, that comparing the ‘size’ of structural members is a silly schoolboy’s game. So, I would like to pose Some Important Questions (discussed, ad nauseam, in previous posts) about the Burj Khalifa Tower …
- Dubayy (Dubai) is a crude reproduction of the nightmare that is the 20th Century North American City, i.e. it is on the opposite end of the scale from being ‘sustainable’ ! ’Greenwashing’ aside … How Sustainable is the Burj Khalifa Tower ?
- There is no effective system, in Dubayy, of Independent Monitoring and Technical Control of the processes of building design and construction by Local Authorities Having Jurisdiction (AHJ’s) or Competent Technical Controllers …
How Fire Safe is the Burj Khalifa Tower … for All of the large population, including People with Activity Limitations (2001 WHO ICF), who will undoubtedly be using/occupying the building during its long life cycle ?
Has the Tower been designed to adequately resist Fire-Induced Progressive Collapse ? ’Robustness’ and ‘Disproportionate Damage’ are separate, but related, structural concepts.
During my next visit to Dubayy … I will enjoy looking at, and photographing, the completed building. But, I will not be entering the Burj Khalifa Tower !
.
Chicago, 2009-11-17: The Council on Tall Buildings & Urban Habitat (CTBUH) – the international body which arbitrates on tall building height and determines the title of ‘The World’s Tallest Building’ – has announced a change to its height criteria, as a reflection of recent developments with several super-tall buildings.
The new criteria wording – ‘Height is measured from the level of the lowest, significant, open air, pedestrian entrance to …’ allows for the recognition of the increasing numbers of multi-use tall buildings with often several different entrances at different levels, whilst also accommodating buildings constructed in non-traditional urban or suburban locations. The CTBUH Height Committee has determined that the previous description of where to measure tall building height from – ‘Height is measured from the sidewalk outside the main entrance to …’ is now no longer sufficient.
This will have an impact on both the height of tall buildings and their relative international height rankings. Burj Dubai, set to open as the world’s tallest building in January 2010, will now be measured from the lowest of its three main entrances (which opens into the entrance lobby for the tower’s corporate suite office function), while the recently completed Trump International Hotel & Towers in Chicago will be measured from the lower, publicly accessible Chicago Riverwalk. In the case of Trump, this additional 9 metres (approx.) means that it will surpass the Jin Mao Tower in Shanghai to occupy the rank of 6th tallest on the current list of completed buildings.
“Beginning in 2007, with the knowledge that Burj Dubai would be significantly taller than any structure ever built, the CTBUH Height Committee met to review the criteria by which we recognize and rank the height of buildings”, said Peter Weismantle, Chair of the CTBUH Height Committee and Director of Supertall Building Technology at Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill Architecture in Chicago. “As one might guess, with the committee being made up of architects, engineers, contractors, developers, building owners and academics, a variety of opinions and views were expressed. The resulting revisions, almost two years later, reflect a general consensus of the committee in recognizing the most recent trends in tall building development around the world.”
Also in response to the changing designs and forms of tall buildings, the Height Committee has elected to discard its previous ‘Height to Roof’ Category. “The roof category just doesn’t make sense anymore”, said CTBUH Executive Director Antony Wood. “In the era of the flat-topped modernist tower, a clearly defined roof could usually be identified, but in today’s tall building world – which is increasingly adopting elaborate forms, spires, parapets and other features at the top of the building – it is becoming difficult to determine a ‘roof’ at all, even less so to measure to it.”
Colour image showing the World's 10 Tallest Buildings ... ranked by the Council on Tall Buildings & Urban Habitat (CTBUH), in November 2009, according to the criterion 'Height to Highest Occupied Floor'. Also included is the Burj Khalifa Tower, which was inaugurated on 4th January 2010. Click to enlarge.
The Revised CTBUH Height Criteria and Diagrams of the Tallest 10 Buildings in the World as of November 2009 can be found here, ranked according to the three height categories now recognized by CTBUH. These are: (i) Height to Architectural Top, measured to the topmost architectural feature of the building including spires, but not including antennae, signage, flag poles or other functional-technical equipment; (ii) Height to Highest Occupied Floor, measured to the level of the highest, consistently occupied floor in the building (thus not including service or mechanical areas which experience occasional maintenance access); and (iii) Height to Tip, measured to the highest point of the building, irrespective of material or function of the highest element.
.
.
END
French Term ‘Développement Durable’ – A Critical Error
Happy New Year (2010) ! Buona Fortuna a Tutti e Tutte !!
Time to get serious again. Does anything about this next little anecdote sound familiar ?
The country is France … a critical error is discovered … there follows much beating of breasts, many tears are shed, apologies all over the place … but …. everyone keeps going forward, exactly as before. No … not the infamous Thierry Henry Handball Incident. Something different … something technical … something which continues, day after day, to add to the international confusion about the meaning of Sustainable Development, or to be more precise Sustainable Human & Social Development !
.
In January 2009, the French Sénat considered a Proposed Amendment to the Grenelle de l’Environnement Legislation …
From the Official Record (No 631 – 22 Janvier 2009) … Article 1ER …
I. A la deuxième phrase du premier alinéa de cet article, remplacer les mots:
développement durable
par les mots:
développement soutenable
II. En conséquence, procéder à la même substitution dans l’ensemble de ce projet de loi.
The purpose of this Amendment … Objet …
Cet amendement a pour but de revenir aux sources du concept de développement soutenable telles qu’énoncées dans le Rapport Brundtland de 1987 et par le Sommet de Rio de 1992. C’est «un modèle de développement qui satisfait aux besoins de la génération présente, a commencé par ceux des plus démunis, sans compromettre la capacité des générations suivantes à satisfaire les leurs». Cette définition de la soutenabilité du développement s’oppose radicalement à celle de la durabilité du développement qui peut être prônée par toutes et tous, notamment les grands groupes industriels et financiers, sans que soit pour autant mise en œuvre une réelle politique de protection de l’environnement.
The Proposed Amendment was defeated.
.
What happened was later explained by Yann Cohignac … on the French WebSite www.developpementdurable.com (!!!) …
Le «développement durable» est un oxymore: un développement perpétuel ne peut en aucun cas être durable. Il vaudrait donc mieux parler de «développement soutenable». Cette opinion, défendue par certains sénateurs, a agité les premiers débats autour de l’examen de la Loi 1 du Grenelle de l’Environnement. Mm Muller et Desessard, ainsi que Mmes Blandin, Boumediene-Thiery et Voynet avaient ainsi déposé un amendement pour opérer un changement sémantique dans l’ensemble du texte.
Objectif: rétablir le sens des mots. Car, selon Jacques Muller (PS, Haut-Rhin), «notre modèle de civilisation est insoutenable au sens physique et biologique, car nous n’avons pas de planète de rechange, mais également au plan éthique. Le développement industriel productiviste, qui n’est ni durable, ni généraliste, est la négation de la solidarité avec les générations futures et entre les habitants du village planétaire». Et de dénoncer les entreprises qui pratiquent le greenwashing, «se contentant de spots publicitaires et de campagnes de communication mâtinés de développement durable sans rien changer à leur politique exclusivement orientée vers le profit à courts termes».
Ce qui fait dire au sénateur que «dans un monde aux ressources limitées, c’est une aberration de parler de croissance durable du PIB. Par respect pour ceux qui aspirent simplement au développement, nous préférons parler de développement soutenable, écologiquement et éthiquement».
Trop Tard Pour Changer
Au Sénat, on a reconnu que l’expression «développement durable», tirée de l’anglais «sustainable development», était très mal traduite. «Toutefois, l’article 6 de la Charte de l’environnement, adossé à la Constitution, fait référence au développement durable», répond Bruno Sido, rapporteur de la Commission des affaires économiques du Sénat (sans parler du ministère même du «développement durable»).
Et surtout: «les Français se sont appropriés l’expression, quelque fausse qu’elle soit. Comme la bataille contre l’usage incorrect de l’expression “bien achalandé”, c’est une cause perdue. Mettons plutôt notre énergie à défendre les idées qu’à changer les termes. Avis défavorable». Amendement refusé, donc. La traduction impropre de l’expression sera ainsi durablement utilisée dans l’Hexagone. Une exception culturelle française de plus.
Les Raisons de la Confusion Sémantique
En 1992 a lieu le second Sommet de la Terre, à Rio de Janeiro (Brésil). L’expression «sustainable development» est alors concrétisée grâce au Rapport Brundtland: elle est largement médiatisée auprès du grand public, et traduite en français «développement durable». Dans une première traduction des travaux de la Commission Mondiale sur l’Environnement et le Développement, c’est en effet le terme «développement durable» qui est retenu. Une seconde traduction, par les Editions du Fleuve, préférera «développement soutenable», adaptation littérale de l’anglais «sustainable development». Mais il est trop tard: l’expression est entrée dans les mœurs et déjà défendue par les tenants de la «durabilité».
Toutefois, certains relèvent régulièrement l’erreur de traduction. De nombreuses ONG utilisent ainsi de préférence le terme de «développement soutenable» pour insister sur les dangers qui pèsent sur la biosphère face aux activités humaines. Les adeptes de la décroissance, eux, considèrent que l’expression «développement durable» est un oxymore: les deux mots révèleraient une contradiction, puisque les ressources naturelles sont finies et non infinies.
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