my thoughts week 12

It’s hard to believe that we are at the end of the semester already.It only seems like yesterday when we first met Muireann McMahon and Dr Colin Fitzpatrick in our very first lecture slot.In that lecture we were given an outline of the module and what was expected of us.We have covered a lot of ground since then and some of the stuff we covered was heavy going and sometimes it could be depressing.The truth can sometimes be a bit uncomfortable but none the less it is a truth that we all have to face if we are to begin to overcome the huge challenge that confronts us

I must admit that the environment wasn’t something that I was overly concerned about,I thought that some people just liked to moan about something and that industry and government was a populist target.The further we got into the module the more  doubts I was having.It wasn’t all doom and gloom thank god.Con Trass showed us that if the earths resources are properly managed that it is more than capable of feeding the worlds poulation.In Nuclear Energy we already have a safe and clean form of energy that will at least tie us over until a more ”acceptable” form of sustainable energy that can deliver the required output is developed.But without doubt the biggest lesson that I have learnt from the module is that the biggest obstacle to Sustainable Development is people’s attitudes especially people in the developed west. Most people have the notion that the earths resources are never-ending and that it is okay to continuously keep using its resources without considering the consequences.Then there are people who have a certain understanding of the situation but feel that whatever they do will make no difference.I have come to the conclusion that in order to change people’s attitudes there must be some sort of incentive for them.This can be financial or just for them to understand that their efforts are worth while in other words there is an activation energy required to get people over a certain threshold in order for people to act.If this threshold can be overcome on wider scale then we all have hope. 

my thoughts week 11

What is  Sustainable Development,how do you measure sustainabilty?These are questions that are very important to the future of the planet.The best definition for sustainable development is “development that meets the need of the present without comprimising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”the answer to part one of the question is probably not as important as part two.Most people can sense what it means even if they cant put it into words.How do you measure SD is a harder nut to crack.We can’t take out a tape measure or a ruler,indeed until very lately we didn’t even have a unit of measurment or what to measure.

Politicians call the shots and sadly it is the decisions that they make that have the greatest effects on the world.They need facts not theories in order to decide on policies.So this is the problem that faced scientists as thy tried to get to grips with how to measure sustainable development.The people that decide policies ie politicians need information that is accurate,information that can predict the possible impact of any decision.This information must be able to clearly show what has been a success in the past and what could be succesful in the future.This information should be data that can be measured quickly and analysed quickly so that decisions can be made with up to date information.This is what we discussed with Dr Bernadette OReagan in the first two lectures this week.

Scientists around the world have come up with indicators as the best way measuring overall sustainability.By this I mean there are certain things that can indicate if sustainability is being achieved.A report into sustainability for The Environment and Sustainable Development Indicators Initative in Canada  came up with six such indcators

1. Air Quality
2. Freshwater Quality
3. Green House Gas Emissions
4. Forestation %
5. Extent of Wetlands
6. Human Capital measured by education.

 These are parameters that are relatively easy to measure and when combined they give a trend that indicates the overall direction of sustainability.This system has many advantages,decision makers can see trends for themselves,planners can show what their decisions are based on which as the planning tribunals prove can be a good thing.It is more transparent to the public too and shows if our actions are jepordising the development of future generations.This encourages people to take environmental issues into consideration when making economic decisions.To summarise indicators of sustainability  simplify,quantify and give us a way of communicating trends in sustainability.Indicators at local level can also be used ie pupil teacher ratio,air quality,water quality,unemployment rates,avilable ammenities,access to public transport etc to get an over all picture of sustainabilty in that community .The local results can be used to construct  the bigger picture at national level.

During lecture 3 Professor Moles introduced us to what was in theory a simple concept but in practice it is anything but.Simply put the concept is the productive area in the world is measured in area and it is then divided by the worlds poulation to give us a unit that is called the Global Hectare or the gha.Each person on the planet has an allowance of these gha s, it is estimated to be 1.8 gha/person but surprise surprise we in the west are using between 2 and 5 times the estimated quota.During that lecture Proffesor Moles asked a very interesting question.Economics and the Ecological Footprint have fundamentally different points of views.Economics is based on continous growth while the latter preaches the opposite it makes you wonder if Sustainable Development is justwishfulthinking.I myself think that it is possible but who knows?

Assignment part 2

Assignment part 2

my thoughts week 10

During week 10 we discussed Product Consumption with Dr Colin Fitzpatrick and Muireann mcMahon.Some of the slides  we where  shown where quite striking,amongst them was a slide of the amount of products possessed by a family from the developed west and a slide of the possessions of a poorer family from some undeveloped country in Asia. The contrast was remarkable and I’m afraid that it brings me back to a recurring theme in this module, that is the over indulgence of us in the developed world when it comes to all things.Food,Fuel,Wealth etc it does not matter we seem to have no control on the way we consume these commodities and it does not matter to us that people in less developed parts of the world are going without.The way I see it one of the many problems with this is that in order for us to be to afford all these products they have to be cheap and I’m afraid that nothing in this world is cheap.Someone somewhere has to pay the price and this price usually comes in the form of cheap labour.Cheap labour doesn’t just mean low wages more often than not it also means poor working conditions such as long hours,poor health and safety and no work entitlments.Add to this carbon footprint of producing each of these products,the depletion of natural resources,the serious problem of disposing of the product when it reaches the end of its usefulness and you begin to realise the true cost of our “affordable” goods.

Choice is good for the consumer,it keeps cost s down ,different people have different tastes and it is the backbone of most economies.But where do you draw the line.Go into any supermarket ,any sports shop,clothes shop or any electrical appliances shop and you are greeted by a wall to wall floor to ceiling mountain of consumables thousands upon thousands of items.There is a growing belief that this level of choice far from being good for us is actually doing harm to us.We dont know how to make our choices and sometimes put of making a choice for fear of choosing the wrong product .When we do choose a product we are not fully happy with it because we have a niggling feeling that we did not choose correctly.I can think of one recent example involving myself,I was looking to buy a laptop so I went into Curry’s in Galway.I had a fair idea of what I wanted and a budget yet it took me an hour to make up my mind.I could have been there a lot longer but for a few “kind” words from my wife.Despite the fact that I bought the model that I was looking for, I  could not help but think that perhaps I should have got a different one

Its bad enough that we can’t make our minds up about what to buy it seems to take no time at all before it needs to be upgraded.There are a few reasons for this,we consumers have an obsession with modern technology and we just have to have the latest model.Manufacturers release the latest technologies in small steps in relatively quick succession prompting us to buy their products more regularly than we would normally.For quite a while now products are being designed to last a specific amount of time again requiring us to buy more.All this consumerism has quite an impact on the sustainability of the planet,resources are being consumed ,the carbon footprint of the planet is being increased,more and more waste is being produced,people in developing countries are stuck in a poverty trap  and for what!We are never happy with what we have and by the look of things we never will be .Maybe we should stop and think ,enjoy the simpler things in life.Perhaps I didn’t need that laptop after all?

my thoughts week 9

During week 9 Corporate Social Responsibility was on the agenda and Sheila Killian introduced us to this subject.My understanding of CSR is that it is not feasible for companies to operate in this day and age with the attitude that the profit margin is everything.Companies now have a responsibility to other parties apart from their shareholders.Examples of these parties would be employees,suppliers,locals,local authorities etc.CSR would not have been a welcome concept to corporate management in the 80s and 90s.At that time it would be seen as a further expense that cuts into profit margins but as time goes by there is a realisation that with the correct implementation this could be a positive for commerce.

There is no doubt but people are becoming more and more environmentally aware by the day and given the choice they will do the right thing.By this I mean if they have a choice of two products,one of which is produced in a more environmentally friendly way than the other they will choose the green product.Research shows that people are willing to pay more for a product of similar quality to a standard product if they believe it has been produced in more responsible way.There are similar advantages to being perceived as a good employer and contributor to the surrounding community,it builds up a reserve of goodwill towards the company that can be drawn on if things go wrong.Young people are now more aware of our responsibilities to the environment and young graduates are looking to work for companies with a good track record in this area.

When companies get their CSR policy wrong it can be a very damaging and costly mistake,an example of this is Shell and how they mismanaged their relationship with the people in Bellanaboy in west Mayo.There was no proper consultation with local people about the installation of an underground  high pressure pipeline carrying raw gas from an offshore platform to an inland refinery.There was widespread disapproval to the route of the pipeline and its proximity to people’s homes.Shell where asked to examine the possibility of an off shore refinery, they failed to do so and instead of engaging with people and trying to reassure them they chose to press ahead with their original plan.This turned into a public Relations disaster for Shell culminating  with the jailing of the “Rossport Five”at their request.This did untold damage to the reputation of Shell in Ireland and across the globe, costing them millions of euros in legal fees,loss of revenue due to delays in construction and security fees.

When companies get their CSR right it can yield spectacular results.A good example of this would be Interface Flooring.Interface Flooring is an american company that manufactures carpets and it is one of the biggest in the world.In 1994 its founder and chairman Ray Anderson had a road to Damascus moment and decided to completely overhaul the way he ran the company.He set out a plan and in this plan he challenged his management and employee’s to make the company 100% sustainable by the year 2020.To do this they had to completely change their manufacturing processes,they recycled old carpets to make new carpets this also saved them a lot of waste.They manufacture 100% recyclable carpets and use 100% recyclable yarn.More efficient machinery was installed and the energy used to drive the machinery and the manufacturing process was to be sourced from green energy sources.Since 1995 the company has saved $430,000,000 using more sustainable methods of manufacturing.Add to that they are held up as an example of how to get things done correctly.The reputation of the company is enhanced worldwide and no amount of advertising could achieve the same results.

The funny thing about all this is the fact that when people are asked to do their bit for the planet and save energy they see it as an inconvienience.In reality it is far from this,a lot of the time small sacrifices lead to huge rewards.After all conserving energy usually means conserving money which is a good thing for everybody.Time and time again the main obstacle to a greener lifestyle is people’s habits and the difficulty in changing them and this is the same regardless of who you are.You can be running a three bedroom semi or a multinational company the principles are the same,it’s a matter of changing bad habits.

 

my thoughts week 8

When it comes certain things we in Ireland have a very laid back attitude.We seem to be able to shut our eyes and not see things when it suits us.”Sure it will be all right” seems to be the attitude. Our European neighbours don’t seem to be quite as casual  especially when it comes to the environment and law,this is especially true when it comes to the emotive issue of turf cutting and depending on which side of the fence a person is on this can be a good thing or a bad thing.

Having grown up in Connemara as a young boy who spent time on the bog saving turf , I can understand both sides of the argument that is going on between people with a more traditional  point of view and the people who are concerned about the environment.Up to a few weeks ago I would probably have been in the first category.This could be attributed to ignorance and to a natural tendancy to shout for the underdog,the under dog being the people who cut a couple trailers of turf each year versus the big bad EU.So in that case I think that the Sustainable Development module is doing what it was intended to do.There is no doubt that turf cutting had a very important role to play in people’s lives through the years but I personally don’t think  it is as important as it used to be and it is certainly not as crucial as some people would have us believe.Some people dont agree with the scientific data regarding turf cutting but with no scientific data to them up it would be better to be safe than sorry and stop cutting turf on these raised bogs.   Some people earn a living from the harvesting of turf but I would guess that the amount of people employed in the industry would be minimal.

 Once upon a time raised bogs covered large parts Ireland but due to turf cutting for domestic use and more recently for power stations it is estimated that there is only 1% remaining .What remains equates to half  of the  total of raised bog left in Europe.Most scientist agree that this has disastrous consequences for the environment.First of all, these bogs are important habitats for some rare insects,birds,flowers and plants and some of these species are to be found nowhere else in the world. More importantly in my opinion is that about 75% of the total CO2 content in the atmosphere is stored in bogs worldwide.the harvesting of turf releases CO2 into the atmosphere and the draining of the bogs pollutes fresh water systems ie rivers and lakes.

With all this in mind the European Union designated these habitats as Special Areas of Conservation and since 1997 Ireland has been legally obliged to protect these sacs .It is an obligation that we have failed badly.Most of the blame must lie with the previous government.As with a lot of issues they have made a mess of it.People need strong and decisive leadership but time and time again the necessary decisions are not made for fear of marginalizing a portion of the electorate.As soon as it became law that these sacs had to be protected it should have been enforced no ifs or buts and none of this “sure it will be alright ” buisness.It has been allowed to drag on and on and it is now nearly 20 years since the wheels where first set in motion to protect these habitats.

During the Celtic Tiger years there was an opportunity to ban turf cutting with minimal financial pain ,the country was awash with money and the cost of alternative fuels were not as high.This oppurtunity was missed and now under threat of fines by Europe the current government has no choice but to enforce the law and in so doing compensation has to be paid.I believe if people where properly informed of the seriousness of the issue that there would be less opposition to the banning of turf cutting on these raised bogs but there has been no public awareness campaign to inform the public.

The issue has now become so serious that the EU commissioner for the environment Janez Potonik may seek a legal injunction to stop the destruction of these areas.Ireland has a terrible reputation in Europe when it comes to environmental issues.Time and time again we have been sent the principles office.During lecture 1 in week 8 Dr Patricia Conlan asked us if it was democratic for Europe to be laying down the law to us.I believe that it is ,we did after all agree to join the EU and we  have ratified numerous treaties since then.It can be argued that we didn’t fully understand what we were voting for but I’m afraid that ignorance is no defence.Anyway considering the mess our own political leaders have made of things it might not be a bad thing to have the EU calling the shots they at least are not afraid to make the necessary decisions.

my thoughts week 7

On the agenda for week 7 was Economic Development and the Environment which Dr Rita Buckley discussed with us.In lecture 1 she asked the question should developed countries contribute to the cost of reducing emissions in developing countries. My first thought was that it might make an interesting subject for a blog.As I thought more about it I began to appreciate that this might not be as straight forward as it might have seemed at first.How do you set the rate of pay?Who gets paid?Who enforces it?What if some of the so-called developed countries can’t afford to pay their share after all there are plenty of “developed” countries out there that are broke and will remain broke for the forseeable future.During the 2009 climate summit in Copenhagen there was an agreement to set aside $100billion/year in order to help developing countries to develop in a more sustainable way.Alltough there was agreement it was very light on detail.

Even if countries could afford  to set aside this money and I’m not convinced that a lot of them can, there are still lot of  issues to be sorted.The developing countries favour getting this money with no strings attached  I think that this would be unwise.I do believe that developed countries have the moral responsibility to help out but that should not extend to handing out huge amounts of money with no guarantees in return.In my opinion a grant scheme similar to the green homes scheme in Ireland would be a good model.These grants could be paid for the building of infrastructure that reduce the overall carbon emissions of that country.These infrastructure projects would have to be initially financed by  the usual means ie the public purse of the country or by private investment.This would not a big problem for a well planned and designed project, there are plenty of fund managers willing to invest in green technolgy.As for the amount that should be payed,again I think that the Irish model is fairly near the mark.The grant that Sustainable Energy Authority Ireland give out to people roughly equates to the difference in price between the cheaper conventional equipment  and the more expensive “greener” equipment.A good example being a conventional central heating boiler and a condensing boiler the latter being roughly 40% more expensive.This would mean that developing countries would get payed for the extra cost of building say a wind farm or a Solar Powered power station in comparison to a coal-fired power station.This could be extended to public transport schemes ie bus lanes,cycle-lanes and to rail networks the money being payable when the projects are completed.

As to how much developed  countries should pay in to a fund  I think the fairest way would be for league table of how countries rate when it comes to the environment taking into consideration the country’s wealth,population ,natural resources etc.Countries low down the league should then be made to pay more, this would also act as an incentive for them to get there act together.Refusal to pay could be punished by financial means  perhaps by increasing the rate they borrow money at etc.I do think that it would be unfair to expect developing countries to carry the extra cost imposed by environmental considerations, while historically developed countries got away with murder.