technical control
Evacuation Chair Devices – Fire Engineering for All in Buildings ?
This post has been running around in the back of my mind for quite some time … and I know now, for far too long ! But recently, my patience with certain manufacturers and suppliers of evacuation chair devices has reached its limit.
In relation to Building Users … previous posts have examined the technical term: Place of Safety (see the post dated 2009-10-24) … and why this concept is an essential starting point in the development of any practical … and comprehensive … fire engineering strategy for a building.
Previous posts have also explored the complex issue of Areas of Rescue Assistance in a building (see posts dated 2009-03-10 & 2009-03-17).
For the purposes of this discussion, now, a clear statement of Fire Engineering Design Objectives is required …
- Evacuation for All Building Users … with an assurance of health, safety and welfare protection during the course of that evacuation.
- Sustain Building Serviceability during Evacuation … at the very least, while people are waiting in Areas of Rescue Assistance … and, until all of those people can be rescued by Firefighters and can reach a Place of Safety.
.
We are rapidly approaching the day when all lifts/elevators in a building must be capable of being used during the course of a fire incident. AND … these lifts/elevators must be situated so that … alternative, safe and intuitive means of evacuation … are effectively presented to all building users.
Greedy vested interests continue to impede the onset of that inevitable day.
Another surprising barrier to the implementation of this goal, however, is the sloppy and incompetent drafting of fire engineering design standards and codes of practice. Previous posts have discussed … and shown … some of the serious problems with British Standard BS 9999 – Code of Practice for Fire Safety in the Design, Management and Use of Buildings (2008).
A ‘Restricted’ Architectural Vocabulary is yet another barrier to implementation. High-Rise and/or Complex Buildings are still typically being designed for Access … not Evacuation ! This fault very definitely lies with the architectural and engineering schools throughout Europe.
.
Until all lifts/elevators in a building are capable of being used during the course of a fire incident … there is an obvious and pressing need for a fire engineering design solution which involves the installation, maintenance and proper use of Approved Fire Evacuation Chair Devices … which need to be powered or manual depending upon the particular circumstances in a building !
AND, even when all lifts/elevators are capable of being used during the course of a fire incident … because lifts/elevators must always undergo routine servicing and maintenance and they will not, therefore, be in operation for short periods of time … there will still be an obvious need for Approved Fire Evacuation Chair Devices. So, these fire-evacuation related products should never be regarded as a wasted investment !
I have repeated the word ‘Approved’ because, unfortunately, since these are also disability related products … insufficient attention, and emphasis, is given to Product Approval in this Market Sector, i.e. showing that the product is ‘fit for its intended use, in the location of use’.
At the most basic level imaginable … National Building Regulations in the European Union Member States, and E.U. Safety at Work and Product Liability Legislation … all demand Product Approval.
.
Performance Requirements for Fire Evacuation Chair Devices: Fire Evacuation Chair Devices, powered or manual, must be capable of …
- being safely and easily operated ;
- carrying people of large weight (150 Kg minimum) ;
- going down staircases which, in existing buildings of historical, architectural and cultural importance, may be narrow and of unusual shape ;
- travelling long distances horizontally … in a robust and stable manner … both within a building … and externally, perhaps over rough ground … in order to reach a Place of Safety.
When going up a staircase is necessary in order to reach a Place of Safety, a powered evacuation chair device must be provided !
.
Fire Evacuation Staircases: A vivid image, with a few accompanying words, are necessary …
Unlike the incredible scene shown in the colour photograph above ... Fire Evacuation Staircases must be suitable for Safe, Intuitive and Unhampered Building User Evacuation, Firefighter Contraflow and the Assisted Evacuation of People with Activity Limitations. A Minimum Clear Width of 1.5 Metres (from edge of handrail to edge of handrail !) is required. Click to enlarge.
.
Fire Evacuation Chair Devices & What To Avoid: Can you spot the Evacuation Chair Device in the first photograph below ?
Colour photograph showing a Fire Evacuation Chair Device Installation at Dublin Airport, Ireland. On so many levels and in so many ways, this 'decorative' installation ... intended to demonstrate that an organization is complying with legislation ... will prove to be, in the event of a real fire emergency, SO wrong and unworkable. Photograph taken by CJ Walsh. 2008-04-04. Click to enlarge.
.
Colour photograph showing a Manual/Gravity Fire Evacuation Chair Device in operation. Transfer from a wheelchair to this type of device at the top of a staircase can be difficult and hazardous ... it can only travel down a staircase, using gravity (never up, against gravity !) ... and during horizontal travel, it is shaky and unstable. Click to enlarge.
.
Fire Evacuation Chair Devices & Issues To Carefully Consider: Modern wheelchairs come in all shapes, sizes and styles … are highly adapted by their owners … and can be very expensive. Why is it a surprise, therefore, to learn that most wheelchair users will not want to abandon their expensive personal property, i.e. the wheelchair, in the event of a real fire emergency.
The answer, of course, is PROPER CONSULTATION with All Building Users (where these are known !) during the preparation of a Fire Defence Plan for a Building.
The following photographs illustrate different aspects of the capability of Powered Fire Evacuation Chair Devices …
Colour photograph showing a Powered Fire Evacuation Chair Device in operation. This particular device facilitates evacuation, down and up a staircase, using the person's own manual wheelchair. Having completed its task at the bottom (or top !) of a staircase ... the device can be quickly released for use by another person who needs assistance on the staircase. Throughout this process, wheelchair users move independently to a Place of Safety. Click to enlarge.
.
Colour photograph showing another Powered Fire Evacuation Chair Device. This particular device facilitates evacuation of an adapted manual wheelchair, which may (or may not !) be the person's own wheelchair. It also facilitates travel on narrow or unusually shaped staircases. Click to enlarge.
.
Colour photograph showing a Powered Fire Evacuation Chair Device in operation. This particular device facilitates evacuation, down and up a staircase. It is also robust and stable while travelling horizontally ... both within a building ... and externally, perhaps over rough ground ... in order to reach a Place of Safety. Click to enlarge.
.
Product Approval in the European Union Single Market: Fire Evacuation Chair Devices must be permanently CE Marked … including the product itself, any cover (such as that shown in the Dublin Airport photograph above), all product literature, and any product packaging.
It is not acceptable to print the CE Mark on an adhesive label … and then stick the label to the product ! Correct informative text must always accompany a CE Mark !
Please note that the CE Mark is not a Safety Mark. A CE Mark denotes conformity with the Essential Requirements of a single, specific European Union Directive.
.
.
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
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
2009 Camberwell Fire – Today’s Fire Engineering Challenges
In Ireland, it is rarely the case that there is an opportunity to practice Rational, Evidence-Based Fire Engineering … and to apply its Principles in a manner which is both professional and project-specific. The grim reality of everyday fire consultancy revolves around playing ‘cat and mouse’ with current national building and fire regulations/codes … with ‘cost effectiveness’, i.e. to achieve a defined objective at the lowest cost, or to achieve the greatest benefit at a given cost … being the real, hidden driver behind such dangerous games ! Who wants to hear that the Irish Fire Safety Certification System is little more than a charade … an elaborate, resource consuming paper exercise … made all the more meaningless because Part B: ‘Fire Safety’ (of the Second Schedule to the 1997 Building Regulations, as amended) is isolated from a necessary and vital consideration of the other Parts, particularly Parts A: ‘Structure’; D: ‘Materials & Workmanship’; K: ‘Stairways, Ladders, Ramps & Guards’; and M: ‘Access for People with Disabilities’ ?
.
Colour photograph showing an external view of Lakanal House, Sceaux Estate, Camberwell, London (GB) ... after the Fatal Fire which occurred at 16.19 hrs, on 3rd July 2009. The fire was caused by a faulty television set, and resulted in the loss of 6 lives, with 15 residents and 1 firefighter left injured. London Fire Brigade was required to assist the evacuation of a further 40 building occupants to safety. Along with the serious loss of life, and the large number of injured people ... over 90 families had to vacate their flats.
.
Discussing the Principles of Fire Engineering … and elaborating on the significant differences between the limited Fire Safety Objectives of legal regulations/codes … and the much broader range of Fire Engineering Design Objectives intended to fully protect social wellbeing and the interests of clients/client organizations, i.e. to properly protect their asses and their assets, in the event of a fire … is a constant, tortuous, but rewarding, struggle. Masochism does help !
However, the 2009 Fire in a High-Rise Flat Complex at Camberwell, London (GB) … from just looking at the photograph above and reading available information about the spread of fire internally … raises some challenging fire engineering issues for building designers, property managers and construction organizations.
.
1. Reliability of People Strategies in a Fire Emergency ?
In spite of the People Strategies elaborated in current Fire Codes/Regulations/Standards … it is totally and utterly irresponsible to advise people to wait in their own flats/apartments during a fire incident, or to develop fire safety strategies based on this approach … unless the confidence level (of ‘Competent Persons’ in Control … managers, designers and builders … of the flat/apartment complex) with regard to the following aspects of construction is very high …
- reliability of both passive and active fire protection measures ;
- reliability of fire compartmentation (see below) ;
- reliability of not just the building’s structural stability, but also its serviceability, during the fire and for a minimum period of time afterwards, i.e. the ‘cooling’ phase.
Competent Person: A person capable of making sound value judgements in the area of professional endeavour in which he/she possesses profound knowledge, understanding and practical experience.
Fire Codes/Regulations/Standards, wherever or whatever their origin, are NOT Infallible … and it is unbelievably mind-boggling, and sad, to witness a blind and unquestioning faith in such documents !
Looking beyond the headline figure of 6 Fatalities in the 2009 Camberwell Fire … adequate attention should also be focused on the 16 Injured … comprising building occupants and firefighters … the lengthy disruption of community wellbeing resulting from the fire … 90 Families had to be re-located … and, of course, the tremendous amount of direct and indirect damage to property and the environment. And, I wonder … how did the more vulnerable occupants … and there may also have been visitors present in the complex at the time … cope in this emergency situation ?
This is why Fire Safety, Protection and Evacuation for All must be a Priority on any ‘Sustainability’ Agenda.
.
2. Independent Technical Control of AHJ Construction ?
I have said this before, but it is worth repeating here again … Self-Regulation Is No Regulation ! Surely this lesson has been burnt into our souls, following the recent scandals, financial and otherwise, in Ireland ? National and Local Authorities Having Jurisdiction (AHJ’s) … Government Departments & Agencies, Semi-State Organizations, a myriad of Qwangos, the Office of Public Works and Local Authorities are complacent, careless and stubborn concerning proper compliance with even the minimal performance requirements specified in fire regulations, codes and standards.
The 2005 & 2008 National Institute of Standards & Technology (USA) Reports on the 9-11 WTC Incident in New York presented us with some stark language … and a set of important Recommendations which must be heeded …
‘ NIST recommends that such entities be encouraged to provide a level of safety that equals or exceeds the level of safety that would be provided by strict compliance with the code requirements of an appropriate governmental jurisdiction.
To gain broad public confidence … NIST further recommends that as-designed and as-built safety be certified by a qualified third party, independent of the building owner(s). The process should not use self-approval for code enforcement in areas including interpretation of code provisions, design approval, product acceptance, certification of the final construction, and post-occupancy inspections over the life of the buildings.’
[2005 NIST Final Report on WTC 1 & 2 Collapses - Recommendation No. 25]
Later posts, here, will examine the individual NIST Recommendations in more detail.
However … many individuals and organizations, with vested interests, are still trying to discredit and/or ignore the Recommendations contained in the 2005 & 2008 NIST Reports on the WTC 9-11 Incident. British Standard BS 9999:2008 is a typical case in point … a document which is slowly seeping into the marrow of the Irish Fire Establishment. The complete and abject failure to consider any of the NIST Recommendations during the long development of this British Standard, or even to reference the Reports in the Standard’s Bibliography … was an inexcusable and unforgivable technical oversight. The result was … and remains … a sloppy, crassly inadequate, deeply flawed and discriminatory national fire safety standard. The British Public deserves far better !
At this stage … reluctantly … I must invite the Chair of British Standards Institution Committee FSH/14, Mr. David B. Smith, to seriously re-consider his position.
.
3. Fire Resistance, Compartmentation & Fire-Induced Progressive Collapse ?
Every person participating in the design, construction, management or operation of a building, no matter how simple or complex, must have a working knowledge and proper understanding of the Fire Engineering Principle of Fire Compartmentation:
The division of a building into fire-tight compartments, by fire and smoke resisting elements of construction, in order …
- to contain an outbreak of fire ;
- to prevent damage, within the building, to other adjoining compartments and/or spaces ;
- to protect a compartment interior from external fire attack, e.g. fire spread across the building’s facade or from an adjacent building ;
- to minimize adverse, or harmful, environmental impacts outside the building.
.
BUT … But … but … buildings are no longer designed and constructed, today, as they were in the 18th or 19th Centuries …
In a fire situation, Fire-Induced Progressive Collapse may commence before any breach of ‘integrity’ occurs in the boundary of such a Fire Compartment, i.e. the building compartment of fire origin.
Fire-Induced Progressive Collapse: The sequential growth and intensification of distortion, displacement and failure of elements of construction in a building – during a fire and the ‘cooling phase’ afterwards – which, if unchecked, will result in disproportionate damage, and may lead to total building collapse.
… which is related to, but distinguishable from …
Disproportionate Damage: The failure of a building’s structural system … (i) remote from the scene of an isolated overloading action ; and (ii) to an extent which is not in reasonable proportion to that action.
Structural Fire Engineering: Those aspects of fire engineering concerned with structural design for fire, and the complex architectural interaction between a building’s structure and fabric, i.e. non-structure, under conditions of fire and its aftermath.
.
AND … And … and … a designer of a Sustainable Building will want to utilize … in order to conserve energy … natural patterns of air movement for heating or cooling. This means that it will be necessary to have gaps between elements of construction which are continuously open … in direct conflict with the Principle of Fire Engineering just quoted above !
What happens when this sort of conflict … or lack of resolution (!) … occurs in modern, highly energy-efficient construction projects ? At the final stages of approval/certification … the Fire Prevention Officer will insist on following the outdated prescriptive approach in his/her rulebook. In other words, he/she will illegally apply the guidance text of Technical Guidance Document B as if it were prescriptive regulation. Fire Compartmentation will be uncompromisingly slapped onto ‘unresolved’ areas of a completed building design … to achieve the limited Fire Safety Objectives of Building Regulations … and the fire safety related construction will probably be badly executed, anyway, because the un-supervised sub-contractors of sub-contractors of sub-contractors couldn’t care less if it goes one way or the other ! The outcome is … nobody wins !!!
In Sustainable Building Design, therefore, Fire Resistance (a ‘passive’ protection concept) must not only be extended to consider a complementary relationship with ‘active’ fire protection concepts, but be stretched … ‘intelligently’ … to embrace the concept of ‘non-construction’ …
Building Sterile Space (Fire): An open space of sufficient and appropriate extent which is designed to retain an exceptionally low level of fire hazard and risk, and is ‘intelligently’ fitted with a suitable fire suppression system – in order to resist and control, for a specified time during a fire, the advance of heat, smoke and flame.
Fire Resistance: The inherent capability of a building assembly, or an element of construction, to resist the passage of heat, smoke and flame for a specified time during a fire.
.
.
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 – 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
2010 ACRECONF in Delhi (Dilli), India – 8th & 9th January
It was a great pleasure to be invited to speak on the subject of Sustainable Fire Engineering at the 2010 ACRECONF in Delhi (Dilli), India. This ground breaking conference in Asia took place at the India Habitat Centre, Lodhi Road, Delhi … on the 8th & 9th January last. Back during August (2009) in Bengaluru … the ACRECONF Chairman, Mr. Ashish Rakheja, told me that he expected an attendance of somewhere between 500-600 people at the Delhi Conference. Over the two days of the actual conference, approximately 1800 delegates participated … an enormous response by architects, civil and service engineers, developers, client and construction organizations, etc., etc., from right across the country … and from the deep south.
Colour photograph showing some of the many participants at the 2010 ACRECONF in Delhi, as they enjoy talking and networking during the morning coffee break of the second day at the conference. The venue was the India Habitat Centre on Lodhi Road. The weather was chilly for the time of year, and there had been a heavy fog earlier in the morning. Click to enlarge. Photograph taken by CJ Walsh. 2010-01-09.
For me … refreshing, extremely impressive, and certainly the highlight of the conference … was a multi-media presentation … on the second morning, just after the coffee break … by Mr. Karan Grover, the renowned Indian Architect. He is quite an individual !
Before the break, delegates had been treated to an elaboration of the Environmental Design Innovations incorporated into the 71 storey Pearl River Tower (Guangzhou, China), by Mr. Varun Kohli of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill (SOM) in New York. Construction of the Tower is now well under way. Afterwards, however, an important discussion took place concerning the issue of fire safety, and fire engineering generally, in Sustainable Buildings. It became clear to all of the participants that this issue is a major oversight … an intentional gap … in the design of these buildings. I made the point, forcibly, that Sustainable Fire Engineering is open to innovation and design creativity. There will be an important follow-up to this discussion.
Colour photograph showing a silly tourist on a bicycle rickshaw, as he is brought sightseeing around the Bazaar District in Old Delhi. Click to enlarge. Photograph taken by Mr. Daljeet Singh, Ministry of Tourism, with CJ Walsh's camera. 2010-01-09.
Unfortunately, the conference was peppered with references to ‘Green’ Buildings … an outdated marketing concept (!) … which, within its limited world-view, gives people the false comfort of not having to deal with thorny issues such as ‘social justice, solidarity & inclusion for all’. I have discussed this issue many times in previous posts.
Even more unfortunately, where the Brundtland Definition of ‘Sustainable Development’ was actually presented in one session … as usual, it was only the first half of the definition which made any appearance. The second, and more important, half of the definition had mysteriously vanished without trace … which made the whole effort a meaningless exercise ! What a waste !! No wonder there is such confusion over the concept … at all levels … in most countries !!!
It was not surprising, therefore, that what was not stressed enough, during the entire conference, was that Sustainable Design Solutions must be appropriate to local geography, climate, economy, culture, social need and language(s)/dialect(s), etc. The LEED Building Rating System (USA), for example, is not being properly adapted to local conditions in India !
A final issue … another major oversight … another intentional gap … in the design of buildings … Accessibility-for-All ! Even though India ratified the 2006 UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities on 1st October 2007 … this essential aspect of design … certainly in Sustainable Buildings … received no mention whatever during the conference … except by yours truly, in my presentation.
Overall … a magnificent achievement for the organizers !
.
.
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
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