Climate Change Seminar & Vegetarian Day Launch,
Waterford City, Friday 27th November 8pm Tower Hotel.
The Local Restaurants Who Will Be Showcasing Their Vegetarian Dishes On The Night.........
Bodega
Bellissimo
Cafe Lucia
Cafe Goa
Eastenders
L'Atmosphere
La Boheme
La Palma
Revoltion
Espresso
Jade Palace
Kasmir Tandoori
Bellissimo
Limeleaf Restaurant
Brasserie
Arlington Lodge
Fan's Restaurant
Becketts Restaurant
Just to name a few!!!! More to follow.......
The City's Book Centre Will Be Showcasing Books Keeping With The Climate Change and Vegetarian Theme.
Press Release about the event:
Waterford' City's Green Party Representative Maria Raftis Kennedy is delighted to announced that the City is getting ready for the upcoming Countdown to Copenhagen Climate Change Seminar which is taking place at the Tower Hotel Friday November 27th @ 8pm and afterwards hosting a cheese and wine reception.
On the night the main guest speaker will be Declan Waugh. Declan is an environmental Scientist who resides in Bandon.Co Cork and he is giving a presentation on emergency preparedness, food security and climate change.He will also speak about the emergency response to the events of the flooding which took place around the country and in his hometown of Bandon which was severely affected. He will discuss how their emergency services, local councillors and representatives responded to the community of Bandon in the wake of the floods on the 19th November.
The Seminar is part of a series of events being organised throughout the world as part of the countdown to the United Nations Climate Change Conference being hosted in Copenhagen from December 7th to December 18th and Ireland will be represented by Our Green Minister John Gormley. On the same night the Waterford Green Party are announcing that the City embrace a Vegetarian Day to show their support for Climate Change."We wanted our goal to be easily achievable ,it's not hard to skip meat one day a week, also, we wanted it to be something people could rally behind" she says.
Local restaurants & bars who serve food in the City will be there on the night as well as local food artisans who like Ardkeen Market have a great range of produce. They will all have fantastic samples of their food and vegetarian being the theme on the night, people who come along will get to know all about the local restaurants and food producers.
The Book Centre will be there as well showcasing books with vegetarian themes and books on topics to do with green issues and have said they are delighted to be doing their part to support the City's Climate change seminar.. "How is the City embracing a vegetarian day supporting climate change I hear you ask.
It's simple, according to the U.N.'s Food and Agriculture Organisation, meat production accounts for 18% of annual greenhouse-gas emissions,that's more than transportation, which is about14%. Each year, millions of acres of rain forest are cleared for cattle ranchers and suppliers of animal feed, further accelerating climate change. Then there are the urgent human-health issues. The world feeds much of its grain to cattle and other animals even as millions of people starve. Those wealthy enough to consume fatty animal products are themselves at higher risk of certain health problems, including heart disease and some cancers" she concluded. "This event will let people know that Waterford City Supports Climate change and that we can get behind our local restaurants and local food artisans and book suppliers, and by helping them achieve that,we can support them by getting out there and buying local produce, eating vegetarian dishes that the restaurants have on offer in their support for climate change”.
There will be also in attendance many other non green organisations. All members of the City Council have been invited as well as local environmental groups and we hope to see everyone there , which is going to be a taseful and informative night.Malcolm Noonan, a member of the Green Party and Killkenny's Mayor will be there as well to lend his support for the Waterford City event. For enquires if you wish to be part this event phone Maria (087-6487627).(Tickets for the cheese and wine reception after the seminar can be bought at the door,Tower hotel reception desk, or contact Maria)
All about Our Guest speaker
Declan Waugh
Declan is a Chartered Environmentalist and Environmental Scientist. He has many years experience in environmental management, risk assessment, renewable energy development, environmental research and more recently as a climate change activist.
Declan is the founder of Partnership for Change a new initiative set up to assist in education and awareness on climate change.
Declan organised amongst many other initiatives the largest and most significant climate change conference in to held in Ireland which included presentations by the worlds most prominent scientists including Dr R.J. Pachauri, Nobel Laureate and Chairman of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC), and Dr James Hansen, Director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, NASA’s leading climatologist and one of the worlds leading authorities on climate change. Declan will be speaking on his recent experiences of the extreme flooding in Bandon, Co. Cork, disaster management, emergency preparedness, food security and climate change.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
The Hand of Injustice
If there is one thing that the sporting public should not stand is foul play yet tonight the worlds soccer media and supporters witnessed an astonishing infringement of the laws of international sport between two competition teams, in the world cup qualifier between Ireland and France.
Video evidence clearly demonstrated that two infringements occurred in the Thierry Henry offside and hand ball goal facilitating France qualifying to the next stages of the World Cup in South Africa. The two offences were clearly demonstrated in video evidence yet no action was taken by the match referee.
Notwithstanding the offside offence, the hand ball infringement by Henry was an act of unsporting behavior and a clear breech of the rules of international soccer.
So what did FIFA the co=governing body of soccer have to say about this?
FIFA News reported the game with the following comment on their website
"In the first additional 15-minute spell, France had an appeal for a penalty correctly turned down after striker Nicolas Anelka tumbled to the turf under pressure in the eighth minute. Five minutes later, William Gallas bunled the ball home to win the match for Les Bleus. The goal enabled France to qualify and avoid a repeat of their humiliating failure, at the hands of Bulgaria, to qualify for the 1994 FIFA World Cup finals.”
It is astonishing that FIFA would be willing to state that the penalty decision was correctly turned down yet made no reference whatsoever to the handball incidence and the fact that the decision to allow this subsequent goal was incorrect. The reporting by FIFA that William Gallas bundled the ball home is an insult to ever soccer supporter worldwide and brings the game of soccer into serious disrepute.
Such reporting is completely unacceptable in the modern age where video evidence clearly shows that the goal should not only have been disallowed but the player Henry cautioned for unsporting behavior.
So what do the laws of the game have to say about such behaviour?
The FIFA Laws of the Game 2009-2010 require the referee to provide the appropriate authorities with a match report, which includes information on any disciplinary action taken against players and/or team officials and any other incidents that occurred before, during or after the Match.
As video evidence will clearly shows a breech of the laws of the game, one that is a cautionable offence by a player the referee is obliged to report this to FIFA. The evidence clearly shows that since a serious infringement was committed by Henry the goal should have been disallowed and the player cautioned with committing serious foul play.
Furthermore prior to the goal itself video evidence clearly shows that players were in an offside position contravening once again the rules of the game. What was clearly observed for all to witness was two infringements from which France obtained the foul goal to allow qualification for the world cup.
According to the rules of the game as noted by FIFA when a player commits an offence such as that of unsporting behavior, it is a cautionable offence and they are required to be shown a yellow card.
While the illegal goal denied Ireland an opportunity to play in the world cup Henry received no caution or yellow card for misconduct and unsportly behavior.
His deliberately handling of the ball, an action resulting in an illegal goal denied Ireland, the opposing team an opportunity to compete in the World Cup in South Africa and should be viewed no less than bringing the international game into serious disrepute. So what do the FIFA rules of soccer have to say about this?
According to the FIFA rules the following conditions must be met for an offence to be considered a foul:
• it must be committed by a player
• it must occur on the field of play
• it must occur while the ball is in play
All three conditions were breeched by Callas in ensuring the goal and therefore without any doubt it should have been regarded as a foul goal.
Furthermore FIFA rules states that it is an offence for a player to handle the ball “handling the ball involves a deliberate act of a player making contact with the ball with his hand or arm. The referee must take the following into consideration: the movement of the hand towards the ball (not the ball towards the hand)”.
Video evidence clearly shows that the player Henry move his hand twice towards the ball in order to keep the ball in play and direct it towards his foot. This was a deliberate act that should have resulted in sanction by the referee.
For such actions the conditions for disciplinary sanctions by FIFA state when a player attempts to score a goal by deliberately handling the ball a caution for unsporting behavior is required. Yet Henry received no caution and the goal was allowed.
FIFA rules clearly state that the referee should caution a player for unsporting behaviour “when a player handles the ball in an attempt to score a goal (irrespective of whether or not the attempt is successful”.
What the viewer clearly observed was a player committing a deliberate act of unsportsmanlike behaviour, breaking the FIFA rules of soccer, receiving no caution or disciplinary and being rewarded with a goal that resulted in a place at the World Cup.
Article 27 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code 2009 states that the result of a match is annulled if the result reached on the field of play is disregarded. Ireland should clearly have disregarded the goal forcing FIFA to examine and review the incident in order to prevent such injustice taking place.
Article 57 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code 2009 states that anyone who violates the principles of fair play or whose behaviour is unsporting in any other way may be subject to sanctions in accordance with art. 10 ff.
Article 76 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code 2009 states that the FIFA Disciplinary Committee is authorised to sanction any breach of FIFA regulations which does not come under the jurisdiction of another Body.
The injustice of the referee’s decision and the actions of the offending player clearly illustrates the breach of FIFA Regulations and must be acted on by the organisation to ensure the integrity of the sport.
Article 77 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code 2009 is responsible for:
a) sanctioning serious infringements which have escaped the match officials’ attention and
b) rectifying obvious errors in the referee’s disciplinary decisions;
The video evidence provides clear evidence that must surely require FIFA to ensure compliance with Article 77 and rectify the obvious errors in the referee’s disciplinary decisions.
Article 96 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code 2009 states that various types of proof may be produced including declarations from the parties and witnesses, material evidence, expert opinions and audio or video recordings.
FIFA the FAI and the FFL must clearly allow the provision of expert opinions and video evidence to repair the damage done to international soccer for the injustice suffered by the Irish soccer team in their world cup qualifier against France on the 18th November 2009.
The Code of ethics of FIFA state that it is essential to the integrity, image and reputation of FIFA and the competitions that the conduct of the member associations comply with the standards of ethical behaviour.
Let us wait and see if FIFA live up to this code of ethics?
You can contact FIFA Here to lodge a complaint.
Video evidence clearly demonstrated that two infringements occurred in the Thierry Henry offside and hand ball goal facilitating France qualifying to the next stages of the World Cup in South Africa. The two offences were clearly demonstrated in video evidence yet no action was taken by the match referee.
Notwithstanding the offside offence, the hand ball infringement by Henry was an act of unsporting behavior and a clear breech of the rules of international soccer.
So what did FIFA the co=governing body of soccer have to say about this?
FIFA News reported the game with the following comment on their website
"In the first additional 15-minute spell, France had an appeal for a penalty correctly turned down after striker Nicolas Anelka tumbled to the turf under pressure in the eighth minute. Five minutes later, William Gallas bunled the ball home to win the match for Les Bleus. The goal enabled France to qualify and avoid a repeat of their humiliating failure, at the hands of Bulgaria, to qualify for the 1994 FIFA World Cup finals.”
It is astonishing that FIFA would be willing to state that the penalty decision was correctly turned down yet made no reference whatsoever to the handball incidence and the fact that the decision to allow this subsequent goal was incorrect. The reporting by FIFA that William Gallas bundled the ball home is an insult to ever soccer supporter worldwide and brings the game of soccer into serious disrepute.
Such reporting is completely unacceptable in the modern age where video evidence clearly shows that the goal should not only have been disallowed but the player Henry cautioned for unsporting behavior.
So what do the laws of the game have to say about such behaviour?
The FIFA Laws of the Game 2009-2010 require the referee to provide the appropriate authorities with a match report, which includes information on any disciplinary action taken against players and/or team officials and any other incidents that occurred before, during or after the Match.
As video evidence will clearly shows a breech of the laws of the game, one that is a cautionable offence by a player the referee is obliged to report this to FIFA. The evidence clearly shows that since a serious infringement was committed by Henry the goal should have been disallowed and the player cautioned with committing serious foul play.
Furthermore prior to the goal itself video evidence clearly shows that players were in an offside position contravening once again the rules of the game. What was clearly observed for all to witness was two infringements from which France obtained the foul goal to allow qualification for the world cup.
According to the rules of the game as noted by FIFA when a player commits an offence such as that of unsporting behavior, it is a cautionable offence and they are required to be shown a yellow card.
While the illegal goal denied Ireland an opportunity to play in the world cup Henry received no caution or yellow card for misconduct and unsportly behavior.
His deliberately handling of the ball, an action resulting in an illegal goal denied Ireland, the opposing team an opportunity to compete in the World Cup in South Africa and should be viewed no less than bringing the international game into serious disrepute. So what do the FIFA rules of soccer have to say about this?
According to the FIFA rules the following conditions must be met for an offence to be considered a foul:
• it must be committed by a player
• it must occur on the field of play
• it must occur while the ball is in play
All three conditions were breeched by Callas in ensuring the goal and therefore without any doubt it should have been regarded as a foul goal.
Furthermore FIFA rules states that it is an offence for a player to handle the ball “handling the ball involves a deliberate act of a player making contact with the ball with his hand or arm. The referee must take the following into consideration: the movement of the hand towards the ball (not the ball towards the hand)”.
Video evidence clearly shows that the player Henry move his hand twice towards the ball in order to keep the ball in play and direct it towards his foot. This was a deliberate act that should have resulted in sanction by the referee.
For such actions the conditions for disciplinary sanctions by FIFA state when a player attempts to score a goal by deliberately handling the ball a caution for unsporting behavior is required. Yet Henry received no caution and the goal was allowed.
FIFA rules clearly state that the referee should caution a player for unsporting behaviour “when a player handles the ball in an attempt to score a goal (irrespective of whether or not the attempt is successful”.
What the viewer clearly observed was a player committing a deliberate act of unsportsmanlike behaviour, breaking the FIFA rules of soccer, receiving no caution or disciplinary and being rewarded with a goal that resulted in a place at the World Cup.
Article 27 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code 2009 states that the result of a match is annulled if the result reached on the field of play is disregarded. Ireland should clearly have disregarded the goal forcing FIFA to examine and review the incident in order to prevent such injustice taking place.
Article 57 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code 2009 states that anyone who violates the principles of fair play or whose behaviour is unsporting in any other way may be subject to sanctions in accordance with art. 10 ff.
Article 76 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code 2009 states that the FIFA Disciplinary Committee is authorised to sanction any breach of FIFA regulations which does not come under the jurisdiction of another Body.
The injustice of the referee’s decision and the actions of the offending player clearly illustrates the breach of FIFA Regulations and must be acted on by the organisation to ensure the integrity of the sport.
Article 77 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code 2009 is responsible for:
a) sanctioning serious infringements which have escaped the match officials’ attention and
b) rectifying obvious errors in the referee’s disciplinary decisions;
The video evidence provides clear evidence that must surely require FIFA to ensure compliance with Article 77 and rectify the obvious errors in the referee’s disciplinary decisions.
Article 96 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code 2009 states that various types of proof may be produced including declarations from the parties and witnesses, material evidence, expert opinions and audio or video recordings.
FIFA the FAI and the FFL must clearly allow the provision of expert opinions and video evidence to repair the damage done to international soccer for the injustice suffered by the Irish soccer team in their world cup qualifier against France on the 18th November 2009.
The Code of ethics of FIFA state that it is essential to the integrity, image and reputation of FIFA and the competitions that the conduct of the member associations comply with the standards of ethical behaviour.
Let us wait and see if FIFA live up to this code of ethics?
You can contact FIFA Here to lodge a complaint.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
The Anatomy of a Silent Crisis.
The following is an extract from a new report from the Global Humanitarian Forum on Climate Change.
Public surveys show that people worldwide are concerned about climate change. Science is now unequivocal as to the reality of climate change. Human activities, in particular emissions of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide are recognized as its principle cause. Nevertheless awareness about the impacts of climate change is low, particularly among the poor. In industrialized countries, climate change is still considered a solely environmental problem. It is seen as a distant threat that might affect our future. A viewpoint reinforced by pictures of glaciers and polar bears — not human beings
And yet Australia is witnessing a full decade of drought. Large tracts of the United States are exposed
to stronger storms and severe water shortages — leading to crop loss, job loss, fires, and death.
We testify here to the human face of this dangerous problem. The first hit and worst affected by climate change are the world’s poorest groups. Ninety-nine percent of all casualties occur in developing countries. A stark contrast to the one percent of global emissions attributable to some 50 of the least developed nations. If all countries were to pollute so little, there would be no climate change
The effects of pollution driven by economic growth in some parts of the world are now driving millions
of people into poverty elsewhere. At the same time, decades-old aid pledges continue to go unmet. The Millennium Development Goals are endangered. And the poor lack capacity to make their voices heard in international arenas, or attract public and private investment. For those living on the brink of survival, climate change is a very real and dangerous hazard. For many, it is a final step of deprivation.
Where does a fisherman go when warmer sea temperatures deplete coral reefs and fish stocks? How can a small farmer keep animals or sow crops when the water dries up? Or families be provided for when fertile soils and freshwater are contaminated with salt from rising seas?
Climate change is an all encompassing threat, directly affecting the environment, the economy, health and safety. Many communities face multiple stresses with serious social, political and security implications, both domestically and abroad. Millions of people are uprooted or permanently on the move as a result. Many more millions will follow.
Even the most ambitious climate agreement will take years to slow or reverse global warming. A global carbon economy has been the basis of all productive efforts since centuries. Emissions are still steadily increasing, and the world population is set to grow by forty percent by 2050.
If we do not reverse current trends by close to 2020, however, we may have failed. Global warming will pass the widely acknowledged danger level of two degrees, since there is an approximately 20 year delay between emission reductions and the halting of their warming effect. This report’sclearly demonstrates that climate change is already highly dangerous at well below one degree of warming. Two degrees would be catastrophic.
Weak political leadership as evident today is all the more alarming then. It is not, however, surprising, since so few people are aware of just how much is at stake. That we are already this far into the most important negotiations ever for the future of this planet without a clear idea of the full impact of climate change on human society speaks volumes in itself. In this respect, I hope that the report will change political attitudes, spur public debate and more research.
Copenhagen needs to be the most ambitious international agreement ever negotiated. The alternative is mass starvation, mass migration, and mass sickness. If political leaders cannot assume responsibility for Copenhagen, they choose instead responsibility for failing humanity. In 2009, national leadership goes beyond the next elections, and far beyond national borders
We live in a global village and we each have a responsibility to protect our planet. Isn’t it logical and equitable, therefore, to insist that those who pollute have a duty to clean up? Pollution by some affects us all. Every one of us needs to understand that pollution has a cost, and this cost must be borne by the Polluter. Least responsible for greenhouse gas emissions are the world’s poorest communities who suffer most from climate change. This is fundamentally unjust. If efforts to build a global framework to address climate change are to succeed and endure they must be based on the principles of fairness and equity. People everywhere deserve climate justice. And everywhere people must stand up and demand exactly that from their representatives.
Climate change is a truly global issue. Its impacts, while skewed, are indiscriminate and threaten us all. People everywhere deserve not to suffer because of climate change. People everywhere deserve a future for their children. People everywhere deserve to have leaders who find the courage to achieve a solution to this crisis.
We must go beyond piecemeal changes to alter the very structure of the global economy. This will only be feasible if we manage to force a global price on carbon that is more representative of its costs to society, calculated at over 1 trillion dollars per year today according to this report’s findings. Taking these costs into account would redirect resources, exponentially multiplying possibilities for taking a greener path.
Indeed, that transformation is likely to prove the greatest opportunity for new economic growth since the advent of the industrial revolution. Renewable clean energy in particular would benefit the poor most, because of health, social and access reasons. It could also help springboard development: remembering, in particular, the 1.6 billion people on this planet who lack access to any modern forms of energy whatsoever.
When it comes to dealing with climate change, everybody must contribute according to their fair share of responsibility for the problem. No nation has the right to pollute. The role of this report is to document the greatest ongoing silent crisis of human history. When reading these pages it must not be forgotten that solutions exist: we can take preventative measures, we can adopt greener practices, and we can provide a dignified existence for all. We can contain climate change and end the suffering it causes.
But nobody can do it alone. Even if the United States or China — the world’s largest polluters in total emissions — were to stop polluting today, if others are not on board, climate change will continue to menace human society. Together, we can multiply the possibilities for overcoming it, and lessen the burden on everyone. But we must act now.
Humanity is facing a rare challenge. But it is a common challenge. There are no sides in the fight for climate justice.
Kofi A. Annan,
President of the Global Humanitarian Forum
Public surveys show that people worldwide are concerned about climate change. Science is now unequivocal as to the reality of climate change. Human activities, in particular emissions of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide are recognized as its principle cause. Nevertheless awareness about the impacts of climate change is low, particularly among the poor. In industrialized countries, climate change is still considered a solely environmental problem. It is seen as a distant threat that might affect our future. A viewpoint reinforced by pictures of glaciers and polar bears — not human beings
And yet Australia is witnessing a full decade of drought. Large tracts of the United States are exposed
to stronger storms and severe water shortages — leading to crop loss, job loss, fires, and death.
We testify here to the human face of this dangerous problem. The first hit and worst affected by climate change are the world’s poorest groups. Ninety-nine percent of all casualties occur in developing countries. A stark contrast to the one percent of global emissions attributable to some 50 of the least developed nations. If all countries were to pollute so little, there would be no climate change
The effects of pollution driven by economic growth in some parts of the world are now driving millions
of people into poverty elsewhere. At the same time, decades-old aid pledges continue to go unmet. The Millennium Development Goals are endangered. And the poor lack capacity to make their voices heard in international arenas, or attract public and private investment. For those living on the brink of survival, climate change is a very real and dangerous hazard. For many, it is a final step of deprivation.
Where does a fisherman go when warmer sea temperatures deplete coral reefs and fish stocks? How can a small farmer keep animals or sow crops when the water dries up? Or families be provided for when fertile soils and freshwater are contaminated with salt from rising seas?
Climate change is an all encompassing threat, directly affecting the environment, the economy, health and safety. Many communities face multiple stresses with serious social, political and security implications, both domestically and abroad. Millions of people are uprooted or permanently on the move as a result. Many more millions will follow.
Even the most ambitious climate agreement will take years to slow or reverse global warming. A global carbon economy has been the basis of all productive efforts since centuries. Emissions are still steadily increasing, and the world population is set to grow by forty percent by 2050.
If we do not reverse current trends by close to 2020, however, we may have failed. Global warming will pass the widely acknowledged danger level of two degrees, since there is an approximately 20 year delay between emission reductions and the halting of their warming effect. This report’sclearly demonstrates that climate change is already highly dangerous at well below one degree of warming. Two degrees would be catastrophic.
Weak political leadership as evident today is all the more alarming then. It is not, however, surprising, since so few people are aware of just how much is at stake. That we are already this far into the most important negotiations ever for the future of this planet without a clear idea of the full impact of climate change on human society speaks volumes in itself. In this respect, I hope that the report will change political attitudes, spur public debate and more research.
Copenhagen needs to be the most ambitious international agreement ever negotiated. The alternative is mass starvation, mass migration, and mass sickness. If political leaders cannot assume responsibility for Copenhagen, they choose instead responsibility for failing humanity. In 2009, national leadership goes beyond the next elections, and far beyond national borders
We live in a global village and we each have a responsibility to protect our planet. Isn’t it logical and equitable, therefore, to insist that those who pollute have a duty to clean up? Pollution by some affects us all. Every one of us needs to understand that pollution has a cost, and this cost must be borne by the Polluter. Least responsible for greenhouse gas emissions are the world’s poorest communities who suffer most from climate change. This is fundamentally unjust. If efforts to build a global framework to address climate change are to succeed and endure they must be based on the principles of fairness and equity. People everywhere deserve climate justice. And everywhere people must stand up and demand exactly that from their representatives.
Climate change is a truly global issue. Its impacts, while skewed, are indiscriminate and threaten us all. People everywhere deserve not to suffer because of climate change. People everywhere deserve a future for their children. People everywhere deserve to have leaders who find the courage to achieve a solution to this crisis.
We must go beyond piecemeal changes to alter the very structure of the global economy. This will only be feasible if we manage to force a global price on carbon that is more representative of its costs to society, calculated at over 1 trillion dollars per year today according to this report’s findings. Taking these costs into account would redirect resources, exponentially multiplying possibilities for taking a greener path.
Indeed, that transformation is likely to prove the greatest opportunity for new economic growth since the advent of the industrial revolution. Renewable clean energy in particular would benefit the poor most, because of health, social and access reasons. It could also help springboard development: remembering, in particular, the 1.6 billion people on this planet who lack access to any modern forms of energy whatsoever.
When it comes to dealing with climate change, everybody must contribute according to their fair share of responsibility for the problem. No nation has the right to pollute. The role of this report is to document the greatest ongoing silent crisis of human history. When reading these pages it must not be forgotten that solutions exist: we can take preventative measures, we can adopt greener practices, and we can provide a dignified existence for all. We can contain climate change and end the suffering it causes.
But nobody can do it alone. Even if the United States or China — the world’s largest polluters in total emissions — were to stop polluting today, if others are not on board, climate change will continue to menace human society. Together, we can multiply the possibilities for overcoming it, and lessen the burden on everyone. But we must act now.
Humanity is facing a rare challenge. But it is a common challenge. There are no sides in the fight for climate justice.
Kofi A. Annan,
President of the Global Humanitarian Forum
Monday, November 16, 2009
The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity
ECONOMISTS are joining up with scientists to help save the planet threatened by global warming while species disappear at an alarming rate.
A major report says that much of the solution is to use and work with nature rather than just putting resources into expensive technology. The key joint EU-German global study, The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity shows that it is essential to protect nature and that up to now we have failed to appreciate its value. For the first time the study has calculated the cost of using nature to clean drinking water as against building treatment plants; closing off and protecting fishing grounds; protecting areas of natural beauty. Eventually around one in every six jobs in Europe depends on the environment, or one in 40 if you take a narrow definition of such jobs based on organic farming, sustainable forestry and green forms of tourism. They show that controlling and adapting to climate change is closely linked to halting the loss of biodiversity. For instance, the loss and damage to forests is responsible for around 20% of global CO2 – more than all forms of transport combined and points to the need for a halt to deforestation. On fisheries the study says that it is an underperforming asset in danger of collapse and is generating €34 billion less than it could. The study found that the benefit of protected areas under the EU’s Natura scheme is considerable.
Species are becoming extinct at up to 1,000 times the normal rate so that more than half the earth’s ecosystem has been degraded in the past 50 years. Should this continue at this rate in 40 years the cost will be 7% of global GDP. "There is little doubt left in the minds of scientists that we have entered the sixth Great Extinction, and that the losses are due to human factors," said Stavros Dimas, European Commissioner for the Environment. "Beyond the moral responsibility we have to protect our planet, the simple truth is that our future is inextricably tied to the fate of nature," he added. The report points out that we have no way of measuring, monitoring and reporting natural capital, unlike economic and human capital and says we have only scratched the surface of what natural processes and genetic resources have to offer. In the future the value of nature and the services she provides, especially to poorer regions, must be measured and factored in by those in charge of deciding policy. The report is available at: www.teebweb.org
A major report says that much of the solution is to use and work with nature rather than just putting resources into expensive technology. The key joint EU-German global study, The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity shows that it is essential to protect nature and that up to now we have failed to appreciate its value. For the first time the study has calculated the cost of using nature to clean drinking water as against building treatment plants; closing off and protecting fishing grounds; protecting areas of natural beauty. Eventually around one in every six jobs in Europe depends on the environment, or one in 40 if you take a narrow definition of such jobs based on organic farming, sustainable forestry and green forms of tourism. They show that controlling and adapting to climate change is closely linked to halting the loss of biodiversity. For instance, the loss and damage to forests is responsible for around 20% of global CO2 – more than all forms of transport combined and points to the need for a halt to deforestation. On fisheries the study says that it is an underperforming asset in danger of collapse and is generating €34 billion less than it could. The study found that the benefit of protected areas under the EU’s Natura scheme is considerable.
Species are becoming extinct at up to 1,000 times the normal rate so that more than half the earth’s ecosystem has been degraded in the past 50 years. Should this continue at this rate in 40 years the cost will be 7% of global GDP. "There is little doubt left in the minds of scientists that we have entered the sixth Great Extinction, and that the losses are due to human factors," said Stavros Dimas, European Commissioner for the Environment. "Beyond the moral responsibility we have to protect our planet, the simple truth is that our future is inextricably tied to the fate of nature," he added. The report points out that we have no way of measuring, monitoring and reporting natural capital, unlike economic and human capital and says we have only scratched the surface of what natural processes and genetic resources have to offer. In the future the value of nature and the services she provides, especially to poorer regions, must be measured and factored in by those in charge of deciding policy. The report is available at: www.teebweb.org
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Man's best friend, it turns out, is the planet's enemy.
Just what is the environmental impact of feeding the huge quantity of "companion" animals around the world?
A provocative new book titled ‘Time to Eat the Dog?’ examines how pets are bad for the planet. The book examined the ecological footprint of pet food outlining how pets consume vast amounts of precious resources, produce mountains of noxious waste – and they can be a disaster for wildlife as reported in Guardian Newspaper and
in New Scientist in a recent editorial entitled Cute, Fluffy and Horribly Greedy
Just like us humans, the millions of domestic dogs and cats – as well as our collective menagerie of rabbits, horses, lizards, tropical fish et al – consume a wide variety of foodstuffs. In recent years, and despite the economic downturn, the pet food industry has witnessed a move towards "premium products", but the market is still dominated by products made with ingredients including "Hydrolysed feather meal", "derivatives of vegetable origin", "ash" and "animal derivatives" are just some of the delights routinely found in pet food.
The Real Guide to Sustainable Living has triggered a highly charged debate about the environmental efficacy of our pet-owning habits. If we are to examine the environmental impacts of all our lifestyle choices, the book argues, then we must also include pets in the discussion, no matter how unsettling the answers. The various environmental impacts attributed to the human food chain are well documented, so isn't it right, for example, that we should now be questioning the environmental impact of feeding domestic animals too?
The New Scientist article, largely agreed with the book's findings that some pets, due to the food they eat, have a surprisingly high "ecological footprint" (a way of quantifying human demand on the planet's ecosystems using a measure called "global hectares"). "According to the authors . . . it takes 0.84 hectares [2.07 acres] of land to keep a medium-sized dog fed. In contrast, running a 4.6-litre Toyota Land Cruiser, including the energy required to construct the thing and drive it 10,000km a year, requires 0.41 hectares. Dogs are not the only environmental sinners. The eco-footprint of a cat equates to that of a Volkswagen Golf. If that's troubling, there is an even more shocking comparison. In 2004, the average citizen of Vietnam had an ecological footprint of 0.76 hectares. For an Ethiopian, it was just 0.67 hectares. In a world where scarce resources are already hogged by the rich, can we really justify keeping pets that take more than some people?
When feeding a pet, however, the advice is to favour pet foods made from chicken and rabbit meat and avoid those containing red meat and fish which, by comparison, have a much higher environmental impact. Last and, perhaps, most obvious: the smaller the pet, the better.
A provocative new book titled ‘Time to Eat the Dog?’ examines how pets are bad for the planet. The book examined the ecological footprint of pet food outlining how pets consume vast amounts of precious resources, produce mountains of noxious waste – and they can be a disaster for wildlife as reported in Guardian Newspaper and
in New Scientist in a recent editorial entitled Cute, Fluffy and Horribly Greedy
Just like us humans, the millions of domestic dogs and cats – as well as our collective menagerie of rabbits, horses, lizards, tropical fish et al – consume a wide variety of foodstuffs. In recent years, and despite the economic downturn, the pet food industry has witnessed a move towards "premium products", but the market is still dominated by products made with ingredients including "Hydrolysed feather meal", "derivatives of vegetable origin", "ash" and "animal derivatives" are just some of the delights routinely found in pet food.
The Real Guide to Sustainable Living has triggered a highly charged debate about the environmental efficacy of our pet-owning habits. If we are to examine the environmental impacts of all our lifestyle choices, the book argues, then we must also include pets in the discussion, no matter how unsettling the answers. The various environmental impacts attributed to the human food chain are well documented, so isn't it right, for example, that we should now be questioning the environmental impact of feeding domestic animals too?
The New Scientist article, largely agreed with the book's findings that some pets, due to the food they eat, have a surprisingly high "ecological footprint" (a way of quantifying human demand on the planet's ecosystems using a measure called "global hectares"). "According to the authors . . . it takes 0.84 hectares [2.07 acres] of land to keep a medium-sized dog fed. In contrast, running a 4.6-litre Toyota Land Cruiser, including the energy required to construct the thing and drive it 10,000km a year, requires 0.41 hectares. Dogs are not the only environmental sinners. The eco-footprint of a cat equates to that of a Volkswagen Golf. If that's troubling, there is an even more shocking comparison. In 2004, the average citizen of Vietnam had an ecological footprint of 0.76 hectares. For an Ethiopian, it was just 0.67 hectares. In a world where scarce resources are already hogged by the rich, can we really justify keeping pets that take more than some people?
When feeding a pet, however, the advice is to favour pet foods made from chicken and rabbit meat and avoid those containing red meat and fish which, by comparison, have a much higher environmental impact. Last and, perhaps, most obvious: the smaller the pet, the better.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
The Truth about Peak Oil
According to the Guardian Newspaper today, the world is much closer to running out of oil than than official estimates admit, according to a whistleblower at the International Energy Agency who claims it has been deliberately underplaying a looming shortage for fear of triggering panic buying.
The senior official claims the US has played an influential role in encouraging the watchdog to underplay the rate of decline from existing oil fields while overplaying the chances of finding new reserves.
The allegations raise serious questions about the accuracy of the organisation's latest World Energy Outlook on oil demand and supply to be published tomorrow – which is used by the British and many other governments to help guide their wider energy and climate change policies.
'There's suspicion the IEA has been influenced by the US' Link to this audio
In particular they question the prediction in the last World Economic Outlook, believed to be repeated again this year, that oil production can be raised from its current level of 83m barrels a day to 105m barrels. External critics have frequently argued that this cannot be substantiated by firm evidence and say the world has already passed its peak in oil production.
Now the "peak oil" theory is gaining support at the heart of the global energy establishment. "The IEA in 2005 was predicting oil supplies could rise as high as 120m barrels a day by 2030 although it was forced to reduce this gradually to 116m and then 105m last year," said the IEA source, who was unwilling to be identified for fear of reprisals inside the industry. "The 120m figure always was nonsense but even today's number is much higher than can be justified and the IEA knows this.
"Many inside the organisation believe that maintaining oil supplies at even 90m to 95m barrels a day would be impossible but there are fears that panic could spread on the financial markets if the figures were brought down further. And the Americans fear the end of oil supremacy because it would threaten their power over access to oil resources," he added.
A second senior IEA source, who has now left but was also unwilling to give his name, said a key rule at the organisation was that it was "imperative not to anger the Americans" but the fact was that there was not as much oil in the world as had been admitted. "We have [already] entered the 'peak oil' zone. I think that the situation is really bad," he added.
The IEA acknowledges the importance of its own figures, boasting on its website: "The IEA governments and industry from all across the globe have come to rely on the World Energy Outlook to provide a consistent basis on which they can formulate policies and design business plans."
The British government, among others, always uses the IEA statistics rather than any of its own to argue that there is little threat to long-term oil supplies. The IEA said tonight that peak oil critics had often wrongly questioned the accuracy of its figures. A spokesman said it was unable to comment ahead of the 2009 report being released tomorrow.
John Hemming, the MP who chairs the all-party parliamentary group on peak oil and gas, said the revelations confirmed his suspicions that the IEA underplayed how quickly the world was running out and this had profound implications for British government energy policy.
He said he had also been contacted by some IEA officials unhappy with its lack of independent scepticism over predictions. "Reliance on IEA reports has been used to justify claims that oil and gas supplies will not peak before 2030. It is clear now that this will not be the case and the IEA figures cannot be relied on," said Hemming.
"This all gives an importance to the Copenhagen [climate change] talks and an urgent need for the UK to move faster towards a more sustainable [lower carbon] economy if it is to avoid severe economic dislocation," he added.
The IEA was established in 1974 after the oil crisis in an attempt to try to safeguard energy supplies to the west. The World Energy Outlook is produced annually under the control of the IEA's chief economist, Fatih Birol, who has defended the projections from earlier outside attack. Peak oil critics have often questioned the IEA figures.
But now IEA sources who have contacted the Guardian say that Birol has increasingly been facing questions about the figures inside the organisation.
Matt Simmons, a respected oil industry expert, has long questioned the decline rates and oil statistics provided by Saudi Arabia on its own fields. He has raised questions about whether peak oil is much closer than many have accepted.
A report by the UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC) last month said worldwide production of conventionally extracted oil could "peak" and go into terminal decline before 2020 – but that the government was not facing up to the risk. Steve Sorrell, chief author of the report, said forecasts suggesting oil production will not peak before 2030 were "at best optimistic and at worst implausible".
But as far back as 2004 there have been people making similar warnings. Colin Campbell, a former executive with Total of France told a conference: "If the real [oil reserve] figures were to come out there would be panic on the stock markets … in the end that would suit no one."
Read more on the future of oil and
Terry Macalister
The senior official claims the US has played an influential role in encouraging the watchdog to underplay the rate of decline from existing oil fields while overplaying the chances of finding new reserves.
The allegations raise serious questions about the accuracy of the organisation's latest World Energy Outlook on oil demand and supply to be published tomorrow – which is used by the British and many other governments to help guide their wider energy and climate change policies.
'There's suspicion the IEA has been influenced by the US' Link to this audio
In particular they question the prediction in the last World Economic Outlook, believed to be repeated again this year, that oil
Now the "peak oil" theory is gaining support at the heart of the global energy establishment. "The IEA in 2005 was predicting oil supplies could rise as high as 120m barrels a day by 2030 although it was forced to reduce this gradually to 116m and then 105m last year," said the IEA source, who was unwilling to be identified for fear of reprisals inside the industry. "The 120m figure always was nonsense but even today's number is much higher than can be justified and the IEA knows this.
"Many inside the organisation believe that maintaining oil supplies at even 90m to 95m barrels a day would be impossible but there are fears that panic could spread on the financial markets if the figures were brought down further. And the Americans fear the end of oil supremacy because it would threaten their power over access to oil resources," he added.
A second senior IEA source, who has now left but was also unwilling to give his name, said a key rule at the organisation was that it was "imperative not to anger the Americans" but the fact was that there was not as much oil in the world as had been admitted. "We have [already] entered the 'peak oil' zone. I think that the situation is really bad," he added.
The IEA acknowledges the importance of its own figures, boasting on its website: "The IEA governments and industry from all across the globe have come to rely on the World Energy Outlook to provide a consistent basis on which they can formulate policies and design business plans."
The British government, among others, always uses the IEA statistics rather than any of its own to argue that there is little threat to long-term oil supplies. The IEA said tonight that peak oil critics had often wrongly questioned the accuracy of its figures. A spokesman said it was unable to comment ahead of the 2009 report being released tomorrow.
John Hemming, the MP who chairs the all-party parliamentary group on peak oil and gas, said the revelations confirmed his suspicions that the IEA underplayed how quickly the world was running out and this had profound implications for British government energy policy.
He said he had also been contacted by some IEA officials unhappy with its lack of independent scepticism over predictions. "Reliance on IEA reports has been used to justify claims that oil and gas supplies will not peak before 2030. It is clear now that this will not be the case and the IEA figures cannot be relied on," said Hemming.
"This all gives an importance to the Copenhagen [climate change] talks and an urgent need for the UK to move faster towards a more sustainable [lower carbon] economy if it is to avoid severe economic dislocation," he added.
The IEA was established in 1974 after the oil crisis in an attempt to try to safeguard energy supplies to the west. The World Energy Outlook is produced annually under the control of the IEA's chief economist, Fatih Birol, who has defended the projections from earlier outside attack. Peak oil critics have often questioned the IEA figures.
But now IEA sources who have contacted the Guardian say that Birol has increasingly been facing questions about the figures inside the organisation.
Matt Simmons, a respected oil industry expert, has long questioned the decline rates and oil statistics provided by Saudi Arabia on its own fields. He has raised questions about whether peak oil is much closer than many have accepted.
A report by the UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC) last month said worldwide production of conventionally extracted oil could "peak" and go into terminal decline before 2020 – but that the government was not facing up to the risk. Steve Sorrell, chief author of the report, said forecasts suggesting oil production will not peak before 2030 were "at best optimistic and at worst implausible".
But as far back as 2004 there have been people making similar warnings. Colin Campbell, a former executive with Total of France told a conference: "If the real [oil reserve] figures were to come out there would be panic on the stock markets … in the end that would suit no one."
Read more on the future of oil and
Terry Macalister
Sunday, November 8, 2009
The Political Tipping Point, can we prevent runaway collapse of the Green Party?
No doubt there will be members of the Green Party that will not have welcomed my comments as reported in the Sunday Tribune today. Some will say the Party have never had so many members nationally. The reality in West Cork is that the number of members in the local constituency group have dropped from over 80 paid up members to less than 50 in the past year alone. Facts do not lie.
On average over the past 14 months the local group now get perhaps 3-6 members attending monthly meetings. The local group could only get a handful of members, and I mean a handful, to canvas the public in the recent local elections. Paid up members simply refused to participate as they did not support what was happening in Government or at parliamentary party level.
My comments in the Sunday Tribune do not just reflect my own personal attitude; I was asked by the reporter what was the view of the local party members?
While I cannot speak for all of them from my communications with members I know many are totally disillusioned with what happened within the party in the past year and in particular more recently at the NAMA convention.
They feel the convention was manipulated, they believe that the parliamentary party (PP) has by passed select committees within the organization such as the energy group, the sustainability group and the social and economic policy group who have been largely totally ignored by the NEC and PP. This week Tony McDermott, co-convenor of the Economic policy group resigned from his position for this very reason.
Many of the local members have said they believe the local branch has no role to play any more in the current political climate as the PP do not communicate with local organizations, consult with local organizations and seem to largely ignore party procedures to suit their purposes.
The parliamentary party has always said that it has a bottom up approach to management and policy development, however recent experiences do not support this view.
While it may be claimed by some that membership numbers reflect support for the GP in government, in reality you need to take a closer look at the membership statistics to test this claim. While a lot of new members joined the GP in the past two years, this has plateaued out dramatically or is scued on the basis of recent attempts at political lobbying which probably saw, for example, more student members join to lobby on education cuts at the recent convention.
Yet at the same time the party has lost some of the longest serving and most loyal members including former councilors and many active green members. How many more will they lose in the next year?
One also needs to look at the geographic spread of membership. The numbers may show a rise in membership in Dublin for instance yet not one recent candidate got elected in the capital or in any other major city. This is a travesty for the party. If the GP cannot get one green candidate elected in Cork city (15% city population are third level students) or indeed Dublin, Galway or Limerick when green global issues are to the fore, the party, as a political movement, has a problem of enormous magnitude.
The morale of the local branch is without doubt very low, they could not get a candidate to stand for the county council in local elections for my area and I at a late stage accepted the challenge to offer the electorate an alternative political candidate.
The party had an excellent candidate and community activist in the town council elections for Clonakilty, but through no fault of her own only managed to get 54 votes; and this in Clonakilty! the heart of West Cork, a self-proclaimed model green town with an active sustainable community group, numerous national tidy towns awards and the first fare trade town in Ireland to boot.
In Kinsale, the founding location of the transition town movement, the party had a standing green councilor who only managed to get elected on the eighth count. Moreover this was achieved by the candidate not promoting herself as a Green Party member to begin with.
I took up the challenge for the county county elections and canvassed a huge constituency with a few friends who were not Green Party members. Members were either too afraid or too disillusioned to canvas given the national mood of the electorate. I did manage to increase the Green Party vote by 20% from the last election receiving a respectable 3,500 votes which included 1-5 preference votes in a seven seater with 13 candidates standing that included two strong independents.
Some Green Party members may feel that my comments may influence morale negatively in the local group further. I would answer, you don't need to tell me about morale; I took a month off work to canvass, largely paid for the entire campaign myself and erected every single one of my posters and most of those for Senator Dan Boyle in West Cork, an area the size of most other counties. To boost my morale further when the counting was finished I had to take them all down again. How’s that for morale busting!
I'm a realist, a pragmatist, a real life environmental professional who has worked in the environmental field for many of the largest and most successful companies in Ireland. I have been active in climate change and environmental initiatives all my professional life. I know the challenges we face as a society and it scares the hell out of me.
I want people to embrace green politics, but the public right now have largely closed down the shutters on the Green Party; they just aren't listening.
What worries me more than current morale is that we could be left with no Green parliamentarians after the next election based on current public sentiments and surveys.
What are we as a political party and green movement supposed to do if this occurs?
There is no doubt the Green Party have shown themselves to be ahead of the game on environmental and sustainability issues, climate change, energy security, peak oil etc, the very reasons I joined the party in the first place. Notwithstanding this, right now they are totally failing to manage their public relations and what is most important, the sustainable development of the party.
What have the Parliamentary Party achieved that makes this worth while? A ban on stag hunting and light bulbs is what the public now associate with the Green Party and a Programme for Government (PFG) that is neither radical enough nor has enough concrete deliverables. The PFG had 200 pledges of which only 9 have any timeframes for commencement, the rest can be largely seen as aspirational.
And then we have NAMA, a delusional NAMA business plan, a newly conceived Special Purchase Vehicle (SPV) and a mountain of private financial sector debt that some believe we can manage with access to cheap credit. Have we not learnt already that credit is not cheap? I am worried that NAMA and its ramifications will bankrupt the nation, we do not have the means to protect all institutions and attempting to do so will ruin any possibility of us addressing the issues that are so critical right now.
Martin Wolf, former senior economist with the World Bank and former fellow of the World Economic Forum, stated clearly yesterday that Ireland does not have the national balance sheet to bail out all the institutions in trouble, yet we plough ahead regardless.
So, is support for NAMA REALLY worth the Green Party committing political hari kari, the clock is ticking not just on Copenhagen but on the current government and we may well have passed the tipping point to prevent runaway collapse of the party.
On average over the past 14 months the local group now get perhaps 3-6 members attending monthly meetings. The local group could only get a handful of members, and I mean a handful, to canvas the public in the recent local elections. Paid up members simply refused to participate as they did not support what was happening in Government or at parliamentary party level.
My comments in the Sunday Tribune do not just reflect my own personal attitude; I was asked by the reporter what was the view of the local party members?
While I cannot speak for all of them from my communications with members I know many are totally disillusioned with what happened within the party in the past year and in particular more recently at the NAMA convention.
They feel the convention was manipulated, they believe that the parliamentary party (PP) has by passed select committees within the organization such as the energy group, the sustainability group and the social and economic policy group who have been largely totally ignored by the NEC and PP. This week Tony McDermott, co-convenor of the Economic policy group resigned from his position for this very reason.
Many of the local members have said they believe the local branch has no role to play any more in the current political climate as the PP do not communicate with local organizations, consult with local organizations and seem to largely ignore party procedures to suit their purposes.
The parliamentary party has always said that it has a bottom up approach to management and policy development, however recent experiences do not support this view.
While it may be claimed by some that membership numbers reflect support for the GP in government, in reality you need to take a closer look at the membership statistics to test this claim. While a lot of new members joined the GP in the past two years, this has plateaued out dramatically or is scued on the basis of recent attempts at political lobbying which probably saw, for example, more student members join to lobby on education cuts at the recent convention.
Yet at the same time the party has lost some of the longest serving and most loyal members including former councilors and many active green members. How many more will they lose in the next year?
One also needs to look at the geographic spread of membership. The numbers may show a rise in membership in Dublin for instance yet not one recent candidate got elected in the capital or in any other major city. This is a travesty for the party. If the GP cannot get one green candidate elected in Cork city (15% city population are third level students) or indeed Dublin, Galway or Limerick when green global issues are to the fore, the party, as a political movement, has a problem of enormous magnitude.
The morale of the local branch is without doubt very low, they could not get a candidate to stand for the county council in local elections for my area and I at a late stage accepted the challenge to offer the electorate an alternative political candidate.
The party had an excellent candidate and community activist in the town council elections for Clonakilty, but through no fault of her own only managed to get 54 votes; and this in Clonakilty! the heart of West Cork, a self-proclaimed model green town with an active sustainable community group, numerous national tidy towns awards and the first fare trade town in Ireland to boot.
In Kinsale, the founding location of the transition town movement, the party had a standing green councilor who only managed to get elected on the eighth count. Moreover this was achieved by the candidate not promoting herself as a Green Party member to begin with.
I took up the challenge for the county county elections and canvassed a huge constituency with a few friends who were not Green Party members. Members were either too afraid or too disillusioned to canvas given the national mood of the electorate. I did manage to increase the Green Party vote by 20% from the last election receiving a respectable 3,500 votes which included 1-5 preference votes in a seven seater with 13 candidates standing that included two strong independents.
Some Green Party members may feel that my comments may influence morale negatively in the local group further. I would answer, you don't need to tell me about morale; I took a month off work to canvass, largely paid for the entire campaign myself and erected every single one of my posters and most of those for Senator Dan Boyle in West Cork, an area the size of most other counties. To boost my morale further when the counting was finished I had to take them all down again. How’s that for morale busting!
I'm a realist, a pragmatist, a real life environmental professional who has worked in the environmental field for many of the largest and most successful companies in Ireland. I have been active in climate change and environmental initiatives all my professional life. I know the challenges we face as a society and it scares the hell out of me.
I want people to embrace green politics, but the public right now have largely closed down the shutters on the Green Party; they just aren't listening.
What worries me more than current morale is that we could be left with no Green parliamentarians after the next election based on current public sentiments and surveys.
What are we as a political party and green movement supposed to do if this occurs?
There is no doubt the Green Party have shown themselves to be ahead of the game on environmental and sustainability issues, climate change, energy security, peak oil etc, the very reasons I joined the party in the first place. Notwithstanding this, right now they are totally failing to manage their public relations and what is most important, the sustainable development of the party.
What have the Parliamentary Party achieved that makes this worth while? A ban on stag hunting and light bulbs is what the public now associate with the Green Party and a Programme for Government (PFG) that is neither radical enough nor has enough concrete deliverables. The PFG had 200 pledges of which only 9 have any timeframes for commencement, the rest can be largely seen as aspirational.
And then we have NAMA, a delusional NAMA business plan, a newly conceived Special Purchase Vehicle (SPV) and a mountain of private financial sector debt that some believe we can manage with access to cheap credit. Have we not learnt already that credit is not cheap? I am worried that NAMA and its ramifications will bankrupt the nation, we do not have the means to protect all institutions and attempting to do so will ruin any possibility of us addressing the issues that are so critical right now.
Martin Wolf, former senior economist with the World Bank and former fellow of the World Economic Forum, stated clearly yesterday that Ireland does not have the national balance sheet to bail out all the institutions in trouble, yet we plough ahead regardless.
So, is support for NAMA REALLY worth the Green Party committing political hari kari, the clock is ticking not just on Copenhagen but on the current government and we may well have passed the tipping point to prevent runaway collapse of the party.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
NAMA, THE LAST STRAW IN GREEN POLITICS
Part of the professional work I undertake in due diligence, at the Lisbon convention there was an economic workshop that Minister Eamon Ryan chaired where I raised the subject of due diligence or lack of, undertaken by financial institutions on development and business loans that will now form a large part of the NAMA or SPV assets.
Financial controllers and business executives undertook ENRON economics in submitting business plans and financial auditing reports to support the widely unrealistic and bloated long term economic value of property. These assumptions were supported by auditing, risk assessment, financial accountancy and private equity advisory firms. In many respects the very same consultancies that are now still employed by the Government in drafting the NAMA legislation.
As with the fable of “the King has no Clothes” when reality finally hit home ENRON was exposed for what it was, it revealed that the business plan was sustained by institutionalized, systematic, and creatively planned accounting fraud, known as the "Enron scandal". That scandal caused the dissolution of the Arthur Andersen accounting firm, yet in Ireland nobody has been held accountable.
In the USA within months senior executives of corporations, financial and auditing companies were in jail, in Ireland it’s a get out of jail pass, golden handshakes, fat pensions and compensation by the taxpayer for deceit, dishonesty and professional incompetence.
More recently the collapse of Bear Stearns in Wall Street, a bank like Anglo Irish that existed for private wealth creation, occurred once again because their internal risk management systems failed.
All these institutions including Anglo Irish, NIB, AIB, BOI employed auditors, risk managers, insurance advisors, asset management professionals and legal advisors to protect their investments. What we have since witnessed is that the entire financial system was based on falsification and deceit, excessive risk taking and shocking standards of risk management.
During the boom years of the Celtic Tiger we witnessed what could be called criminal behavior by evaluators, bankers, land surveyors, financial advisors, risk assessors, all addicted to institutionalized greed. Nobody has been held accountable for the failure of the financial regulator, the central bank or the Government to control our economy. Yet with NAMA one thing is certain the taxpayer is now accountable.
The unsustainable business model of the ‘Celtic Tiger’ and total lack of supervision by the financial sector created the conditions for the catastrophic collapse of the economy we now see. We have learnt in the meantime how the banks were interconnected, did business, and still do, with the same advisory firms, we know they were sustained with plastid Government support attempting to store up confidence in the banking sector and Government Policy. Anyone who spoke out about financial mismanagement was labeled a loony and encouraged even by our last Taoiseach to commit suicide.
The consequence of this mismanagement we are now lead to believe is that the banks have become to big to fail. Why this was allowed to occur is unclear. After all, both the financial regulator and the Central Bank had or should have had ample information on the stability of the banks as well as the legal ability and obligation to prevent destabilising banking.
In the financial crisis we face, the strength of a bank’s balance sheet is of little consequence. What matters is the explicit or implicit guarantee provided by the state to the banks to back up their assets and provide liquidity. Therefore, the size of the state relative to the size of the banks becomes a crucial factor.
Can the state now afford to save all the banking institutions, today Bank of Ireland posted a pre-tax loss of €979 million for the six months to September 30 compared with profit of 647 million euros during the equivalent period in 2008.
Bank of Ireland said loan impairment charges in the six months were 1.8 billion euros, up from 267 million euros a year ago. The bank has forecast loan impairments of 6.9 billion euros in the three years to March 2011.
Least we forget just last February Bank of Ireland’s estimates for loan impairment charges were calculated at €3.8 billion to circa €4.5 billion for the same period up to March 2011. In the six months since loan impairment has increased by an astonishing €3billion. In the same period both Bank of Ireland and Allied Irish Bank received €7 billion in state aid from the Irish taxpayer.
What we are seeing is the taxpayer through the state investing money in a financial black hole, a black hole that Anglo Irish Bank’s transfer of €28 billion in loans to NAMA will suck us all in.
It is clear that the state is not in any position to attempt to save Anglo Irish Bank. Still the Government pursues this agenda. They have not addressed the failure of the banking system and are gambling for a resurrection on the backs of a NAMA business plan that would not pass the most basic risk management test. A business plan, that must be pointed out is based on continued economic growth over the next ten years.
What is most shocking of all about this is the acceptance and willingness of the Green Party to go along with this fiasco. A fitting satire to peak everything and runaway credit.
What bothers me even more is that the Green Party credits itself as the most transparent and democratic political party in the state. Yet just days after the NAMA convention the Government releases the now discredited NAMA business plan, which would have been in existence well before the convention, followed a week later with revisions to the NAMA legislation with the inclusion of a SPV that will be controlled by private interests but paid for by public monies, which also must surely have been discussed at cabinet by the government.
I find it unbelievable that the Green Party Ministers were not aware of either nor that they wouldn’t have discussed them at Cabinet table with their colleagues. After all isn’t this what collective cabinet responsibility is all about! A bit like how the green parliamentary party is supposed to work as well. If they were not informed or consulted this surely must be the last straw for the current Government.
Of course none of this would have happened if the last Government had acted prudently in the first place, the economy regardless of the global financial crisis would be in a much better shape.
Looking back I cannot escape the feeling that the board and directors of the Central Bank and the financial regulator, along with senior officials there knew what was happening. Similarly, all government ministers, along with senior bureaucrats in the ministries of finance, revenue commissioners and office of the Taoiseach had to have known.
Financial controllers and business executives undertook ENRON economics in submitting business plans and financial auditing reports to support the widely unrealistic and bloated long term economic value of property. These assumptions were supported by auditing, risk assessment, financial accountancy and private equity advisory firms. In many respects the very same consultancies that are now still employed by the Government in drafting the NAMA legislation.
As with the fable of “the King has no Clothes” when reality finally hit home ENRON was exposed for what it was, it revealed that the business plan was sustained by institutionalized, systematic, and creatively planned accounting fraud, known as the "Enron scandal". That scandal caused the dissolution of the Arthur Andersen accounting firm, yet in Ireland nobody has been held accountable.
In the USA within months senior executives of corporations, financial and auditing companies were in jail, in Ireland it’s a get out of jail pass, golden handshakes, fat pensions and compensation by the taxpayer for deceit, dishonesty and professional incompetence.
More recently the collapse of Bear Stearns in Wall Street, a bank like Anglo Irish that existed for private wealth creation, occurred once again because their internal risk management systems failed.
All these institutions including Anglo Irish, NIB, AIB, BOI employed auditors, risk managers, insurance advisors, asset management professionals and legal advisors to protect their investments. What we have since witnessed is that the entire financial system was based on falsification and deceit, excessive risk taking and shocking standards of risk management.
During the boom years of the Celtic Tiger we witnessed what could be called criminal behavior by evaluators, bankers, land surveyors, financial advisors, risk assessors, all addicted to institutionalized greed. Nobody has been held accountable for the failure of the financial regulator, the central bank or the Government to control our economy. Yet with NAMA one thing is certain the taxpayer is now accountable.
The unsustainable business model of the ‘Celtic Tiger’ and total lack of supervision by the financial sector created the conditions for the catastrophic collapse of the economy we now see. We have learnt in the meantime how the banks were interconnected, did business, and still do, with the same advisory firms, we know they were sustained with plastid Government support attempting to store up confidence in the banking sector and Government Policy. Anyone who spoke out about financial mismanagement was labeled a loony and encouraged even by our last Taoiseach to commit suicide.
The consequence of this mismanagement we are now lead to believe is that the banks have become to big to fail. Why this was allowed to occur is unclear. After all, both the financial regulator and the Central Bank had or should have had ample information on the stability of the banks as well as the legal ability and obligation to prevent destabilising banking.
In the financial crisis we face, the strength of a bank’s balance sheet is of little consequence. What matters is the explicit or implicit guarantee provided by the state to the banks to back up their assets and provide liquidity. Therefore, the size of the state relative to the size of the banks becomes a crucial factor.
Can the state now afford to save all the banking institutions, today Bank of Ireland posted a pre-tax loss of €979 million for the six months to September 30 compared with profit of 647 million euros during the equivalent period in 2008.
Bank of Ireland said loan impairment charges in the six months were 1.8 billion euros, up from 267 million euros a year ago. The bank has forecast loan impairments of 6.9 billion euros in the three years to March 2011.
Least we forget just last February Bank of Ireland’s estimates for loan impairment charges were calculated at €3.8 billion to circa €4.5 billion for the same period up to March 2011. In the six months since loan impairment has increased by an astonishing €3billion. In the same period both Bank of Ireland and Allied Irish Bank received €7 billion in state aid from the Irish taxpayer.
What we are seeing is the taxpayer through the state investing money in a financial black hole, a black hole that Anglo Irish Bank’s transfer of €28 billion in loans to NAMA will suck us all in.
It is clear that the state is not in any position to attempt to save Anglo Irish Bank. Still the Government pursues this agenda. They have not addressed the failure of the banking system and are gambling for a resurrection on the backs of a NAMA business plan that would not pass the most basic risk management test. A business plan, that must be pointed out is based on continued economic growth over the next ten years.
What is most shocking of all about this is the acceptance and willingness of the Green Party to go along with this fiasco. A fitting satire to peak everything and runaway credit.
What bothers me even more is that the Green Party credits itself as the most transparent and democratic political party in the state. Yet just days after the NAMA convention the Government releases the now discredited NAMA business plan, which would have been in existence well before the convention, followed a week later with revisions to the NAMA legislation with the inclusion of a SPV that will be controlled by private interests but paid for by public monies, which also must surely have been discussed at cabinet by the government.
I find it unbelievable that the Green Party Ministers were not aware of either nor that they wouldn’t have discussed them at Cabinet table with their colleagues. After all isn’t this what collective cabinet responsibility is all about! A bit like how the green parliamentary party is supposed to work as well. If they were not informed or consulted this surely must be the last straw for the current Government.
Of course none of this would have happened if the last Government had acted prudently in the first place, the economy regardless of the global financial crisis would be in a much better shape.
Looking back I cannot escape the feeling that the board and directors of the Central Bank and the financial regulator, along with senior officials there knew what was happening. Similarly, all government ministers, along with senior bureaucrats in the ministries of finance, revenue commissioners and office of the Taoiseach had to have known.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
The future of Green Politics is dead and buried under a monument to failure called NAMA
After a weekend of reflection with a large group of my friends I am left in no doubt that the consequence of the Green Party supporting the NAMA legislation has resulted in the party destroying any opportunity for not just the current generation to embrace green politics but it will prevent the next generation from being given an opportunity to join what I had hoped until recently was a Party of the future in this country.
I joined the Green Party as an environmental scientist who believed in what the party stood for back in 2007. I actively encouraged friends and colleagues to think differently about the Green Party and made some serious inroads into bringing about behavioural change within the community I live to support green politics. I was asked to stand in the local elections and did so in west cork, standing up for the Green Party when many others were not willing to engage with the public. This cost be significantly in time and personal finances.
I can categorically say right now I now do not have one personal friend or acquaintance who believes that the Green Party are making the right decision in government in regard to NAMA.
The universal belief of people I meet is that they will NEVER vote green again, even regardless of their friendship to me or their support for me in the past in my career or in my public endeavours.
Without fail they are of the opinion that whatever principals or integrity the party had amount to nothing in the debacle we now find ourselves in with NAMA.
As a committed environmentalist this has shaken my own belief in the party, I find that the willingness of the party to support the NAMA legislation is a step too far and I fear that I may have no choice but to resign from the party.
As a environmental scientist if I wish to continue to build support in the community for sustainable development and green ideologies I find all of my work in attempting to build a low carbon future is now in jeopardy as a consequence of my association with the Green Party.
A party that has lost the support not just of a large percentage of its own members but of the public at large.
I am even more enraged and saddened at this because this should be at a time when Green politics should be on the rise with the threat of climate change and sustainability, instead the parties continued support for NAMA is extinguishing and possibility of the party offering a realistic alternative to the public in the difficult years ahead.
I fear the Green Party will be remembered for NAMA; for not being willing to take the principled stand, but for supporting a vehicle that goes against the very core of green philosophy or matters of sustainability, legislation that supports greed, unsustainable development and the concept of profit from a failed financial system that has bankrupt the state.
Right now it brings to mind Jim Morrison of the Doors with the words,
“This is the end
My only friend, the end
Of our elaborate plans, the end
Of everything that stands, the end
No safety or surprise, the end
I'll never look into your eyes...again..”
As someone who has always felt that I have an ability to feel the pulse of the people and have many times rode ahead of the posse in current or political opinions I believe that NAMA will be the tombstone of green politics in Ireland for a generation.
What a sorry waste,
What a terrible tragedy.
I joined the Green Party as an environmental scientist who believed in what the party stood for back in 2007. I actively encouraged friends and colleagues to think differently about the Green Party and made some serious inroads into bringing about behavioural change within the community I live to support green politics. I was asked to stand in the local elections and did so in west cork, standing up for the Green Party when many others were not willing to engage with the public. This cost be significantly in time and personal finances.
I can categorically say right now I now do not have one personal friend or acquaintance who believes that the Green Party are making the right decision in government in regard to NAMA.
The universal belief of people I meet is that they will NEVER vote green again, even regardless of their friendship to me or their support for me in the past in my career or in my public endeavours.
Without fail they are of the opinion that whatever principals or integrity the party had amount to nothing in the debacle we now find ourselves in with NAMA.
As a committed environmentalist this has shaken my own belief in the party, I find that the willingness of the party to support the NAMA legislation is a step too far and I fear that I may have no choice but to resign from the party.
As a environmental scientist if I wish to continue to build support in the community for sustainable development and green ideologies I find all of my work in attempting to build a low carbon future is now in jeopardy as a consequence of my association with the Green Party.
A party that has lost the support not just of a large percentage of its own members but of the public at large.
I am even more enraged and saddened at this because this should be at a time when Green politics should be on the rise with the threat of climate change and sustainability, instead the parties continued support for NAMA is extinguishing and possibility of the party offering a realistic alternative to the public in the difficult years ahead.
I fear the Green Party will be remembered for NAMA; for not being willing to take the principled stand, but for supporting a vehicle that goes against the very core of green philosophy or matters of sustainability, legislation that supports greed, unsustainable development and the concept of profit from a failed financial system that has bankrupt the state.
Right now it brings to mind Jim Morrison of the Doors with the words,
“This is the end
My only friend, the end
Of our elaborate plans, the end
Of everything that stands, the end
No safety or surprise, the end
I'll never look into your eyes...again..”
As someone who has always felt that I have an ability to feel the pulse of the people and have many times rode ahead of the posse in current or political opinions I believe that NAMA will be the tombstone of green politics in Ireland for a generation.
What a sorry waste,
What a terrible tragedy.
Finger Printing Politicians
I wrote recently about misuse of expenses by certain individuals in regard to the Seanad Eireann.
I questioned how a figure of more than €10.57million could have been claimed by certain Senators when the level of attendance by many is so abysmally low?
I asked the question what are they being paid expenses for and what are they doing if not Seanad work. Well now thanks to recent statements in Seanad Eireann by Senator Michael McCarthy I know exactly what some of them are doing and it all makes sense.
Speaking recently against the proposed changes to the Oireachtas expenses regime Senator McCarthy railed against the proposed Bill, which allows for greater transparency in expenses stating:“While this legislation is necessary and we must take a principled stand, it is also important to ask the serious questions and be practical about this matter. For example, are we now going to sign in to public meetings? My constituency is over 120 miles long, from Cork airport almost to Kenmare, taking in the Beara peninsula, the Mizen peninsula, and the harbours at Kinsale, Clonakilty, Baltimore and Courtmacsherry.”
He added "There are three electoral areas. As a successful constituency politician himself, the Minister of State will be aware of the importance of attending events and being seen where the crowds are. The perception and optics of a public representative include being seen in different places to meet constituents and support events".
Will we have to sign in for attending festivals, regattas, tidy town competitions, public meetings and ribbon-opening ceremonies? Will we have to provide proof of attending funerals to the Minister of State? Will we sign in when we meet planners or when we visit a site? Will we sign in when we attend a local authority meeting to listen to a report to councillors? said Senator McCarthy.
The Senator is talking about the Cork South West, Dail Constituency. He seems unaware that his constitutional role as a Senator means that he does not have a constituency. In fact he is arguing here that he should be permitted to be paid by the taxpayer for attending funerals, festivals, ribbon opening ceremonies and in his own words being seen where the crowds are.
Is this why Senator McCarthy is being paid over €130,000 a year in salary and expenses?
Is this the role and responsibility of a Senator to use his time being paid as a public servant canvassing for a Dail seat, instead of doing the job he is actually paid for in Seanad Eireann. Certainly not.
In a time when the public are seeking greater transparency on how public monies are spent or where they could be spent, one must question the value we are getting for OUR money. Let us not forget that our taxed income is paying for this extravagance.
Senator McCarthy had much more to say however on transparency in expenses for politicians. He view is that it is unnecessary.
“this Bill concerns the over-regulation of politicians. Are we to be fingerprinted when we come into Leinster House so that we can draw expenses? We must not forget the add-ons in the public service, as well as the vulgar filth that took place in FÁS, and the illegal practices in banks. Did they have to sign in? No they did not. They left their jobs, took their large pensions and lump sums and sat down…They do not have to sign in, but we must do so. It has become ridiculous.”
It surely has become ridiculous.
I questioned how a figure of more than €10.57million could have been claimed by certain Senators when the level of attendance by many is so abysmally low?
I asked the question what are they being paid expenses for and what are they doing if not Seanad work. Well now thanks to recent statements in Seanad Eireann by Senator Michael McCarthy I know exactly what some of them are doing and it all makes sense.
Speaking recently against the proposed changes to the Oireachtas expenses regime Senator McCarthy railed against the proposed Bill, which allows for greater transparency in expenses stating:“While this legislation is necessary and we must take a principled stand, it is also important to ask the serious questions and be practical about this matter. For example, are we now going to sign in to public meetings? My constituency is over 120 miles long, from Cork airport almost to Kenmare, taking in the Beara peninsula, the Mizen peninsula, and the harbours at Kinsale, Clonakilty, Baltimore and Courtmacsherry.”
He added "There are three electoral areas. As a successful constituency politician himself, the Minister of State will be aware of the importance of attending events and being seen where the crowds are. The perception and optics of a public representative include being seen in different places to meet constituents and support events".
Will we have to sign in for attending festivals, regattas, tidy town competitions, public meetings and ribbon-opening ceremonies? Will we have to provide proof of attending funerals to the Minister of State? Will we sign in when we meet planners or when we visit a site? Will we sign in when we attend a local authority meeting to listen to a report to councillors? said Senator McCarthy.
The Senator is talking about the Cork South West, Dail Constituency. He seems unaware that his constitutional role as a Senator means that he does not have a constituency. In fact he is arguing here that he should be permitted to be paid by the taxpayer for attending funerals, festivals, ribbon opening ceremonies and in his own words being seen where the crowds are.
Is this why Senator McCarthy is being paid over €130,000 a year in salary and expenses?
Is this the role and responsibility of a Senator to use his time being paid as a public servant canvassing for a Dail seat, instead of doing the job he is actually paid for in Seanad Eireann. Certainly not.
In a time when the public are seeking greater transparency on how public monies are spent or where they could be spent, one must question the value we are getting for OUR money. Let us not forget that our taxed income is paying for this extravagance.
Senator McCarthy had much more to say however on transparency in expenses for politicians. He view is that it is unnecessary.
“this Bill concerns the over-regulation of politicians. Are we to be fingerprinted when we come into Leinster House so that we can draw expenses? We must not forget the add-ons in the public service, as well as the vulgar filth that took place in FÁS, and the illegal practices in banks. Did they have to sign in? No they did not. They left their jobs, took their large pensions and lump sums and sat down…They do not have to sign in, but we must do so. It has become ridiculous.”
It surely has become ridiculous.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Education Payroll Budget: A Public Sector Bubble We Can no Longer Afford.
I was interested recently in doing some research into education in Ireland wondering how had things changed since I left secondary school myself. What drew me to this task was the statement by John Gormley T.D. and leader of the Green Party, that the Green Party is the Party of Education. As a member of the Green Party myself I wanted to find out more.
What I found was astonishing. Here is a summary. There are today some 480,000 students in primary taught by 31,349 primary full time teachers, 337,000 students in secondary education taught by 27,236 full-time secondary teachers and 150,000 students in third level resourced with over 35,000 full-time academic and non-academic staff.
This can be broken down into 10,000 full-time academic staff, over 15,000 full-time contract research staff and over 10,000 non-academic staff employed.
This is why the Department of Education has the third largest budget of any Department in the State. When you see these figures its easy to understand why.
So how far have we come in the past decade with education?
Far more than we would ever realize. Lets look at the facts. In 1998 the number of primary school teachers in full time employment was 21,100, today it stands at 31,349 an increase of 10,249. The number of full time secondary school teachers in employment in 2000 was 24,600 and today it is 27,236, that’s an increase of 2,636.
I do not have the figures for employment in third level for 2000 but it is widely accepted that there are now a considerably larger number of staff employed full time compared to ten years ago. So what we have seen in the recent past is a massive increase in investment in education by the state that is not generally acknowledged by the public or trade unions.
To illustrate how significant this investment has been lets look a little deeper at the statistics.
In 1985 there were 552,528 students in primary education. Today there are 480,000, a reduction of 72,528 pupils. Within the same time we have seen an increase in the number of teachers by over 10,000 full time staff. So while student numbers have fallen significantly teacher numbers have increased by a roughly a third. But lets not forget this investment was necessary as we were making up lost ground to bring our standards up to our European neighbours.
The expenditure per student for primary, secondary and third level education has increased significantly in the past ten years from €3,313, €4,949 and €8,927 respectively in 1998 to €6,546, €9,447 and €11,368 in 2008. That's an increase between 100% for primary education to 20% for third level in the last ten years.
In every respect one has to acknowledge that in a short time we have come an enormous distance. The facts speak plainly when it comes to education; we have never had it so good.
The State has invested in education enormously over the past ten years. This money, however, has principally been spent on salaries and not on educational infrastructure. Hence, the substandard quality of infrastructure used by many schools around Ireland, which in some cases comprises entirely of leaky, cold and poorly insulated prefabs.
As with other sectors of the public sector we have seen a massive investment in human resources in hiring additional staff. In parallel with the huge increase in staff numbers has also come a significant increase in salary costs over the past ten years.
One of the problems that now confronts us is how we pay for this as a nation going forward.
If we cannot pay for it, what do we do? Do we cut numbers or cut costs? For in the next ten years we must find over €12 billion in savings to deal with the critical state of the public finances. This critical state has us borrowing €70 million a day to pay for our public sector costs alone.
If we look at what the situation is elsewhere it might help enlighten us as to how we may manage our costs in the difficult years ahead.
A typical secondary teacher in Ireland after nine years service earns approximately €56,000 and this figure rises annually thereafter; in the UK it is capped for life at €40,100 (save for annual inflation rises). In every respect after nine years service to be able to earn €56,000 is a very significant salary especially for a job that is also compensated with 18 weeks paid holidays a year. In reality what this means is that for someone who takes up employment as a secondary school teacher at 24, by the time they are 33 they will be guaranteed an income of €56,000, 18 weeks holidays and a guaranteed pension.
If we were paying similar wages to the UK for secondary school teachers, where they have a much greater tax base to pay for public sector salaries, we would see an approximate reduction of €433 million a year in operational staff budgets for secondary education alone. That's a lot of money. The figure for third level would be even higher approaching one billion euros as academics and lecturers in Ireland are paid significantly more in Ireland than their European counterparts.
The reality, which we don’t want to accept, is that we are a very small country and cannot really afford to pay the many very generous public sector salaries awarded in this country. It will be impossible to make significant savings in the education budget without impacting on services provided unless payroll costs are revised. This reminds me of a scenario I had as an employer back in 2002 when I wanted to take on additional staff and increase the salaries of new staff in my organization but did not have the budget available to do so. I knew that in order for the business to develop in difficult times something had to give. My response was not to take a pay-rise that was due to me but rather use this money to reward and keep the existing staff on my payroll. For me this was a relatively simple decision; I knew my job would be made a lot more difficult if staff left. How many I wonder in the public sector would be willing to take a pay cut to keep their colleagues in employment? From what we hear from the Unions, no one is willing to compromise. What we have seen in some public sector organisations, however, is part time staff losing their jobs by the hundreds and thousands while their full time colleagues get pay rises. Payroll costs have increased while numbers employed have decreased. This is a shocking indictment of our country and character.
What we need right now, more than ever, is national unity, which requires public sector employees and their unions to acknowledge reality. The taxpayer and the public sector must come to accept the reality that we have a public sector bubble that we can no longer afford. We all agree that we must invest in education and services but this does not mean that we go bankrupt doing so. Something must give and it has to be a reduction in salaries back to European norms.
What I found was astonishing. Here is a summary. There are today some 480,000 students in primary taught by 31,349 primary full time teachers, 337,000 students in secondary education taught by 27,236 full-time secondary teachers and 150,000 students in third level resourced with over 35,000 full-time academic and non-academic staff.
This can be broken down into 10,000 full-time academic staff, over 15,000 full-time contract research staff and over 10,000 non-academic staff employed.
This is why the Department of Education has the third largest budget of any Department in the State. When you see these figures its easy to understand why.
So how far have we come in the past decade with education?
Far more than we would ever realize. Lets look at the facts. In 1998 the number of primary school teachers in full time employment was 21,100, today it stands at 31,349 an increase of 10,249. The number of full time secondary school teachers in employment in 2000 was 24,600 and today it is 27,236, that’s an increase of 2,636.
I do not have the figures for employment in third level for 2000 but it is widely accepted that there are now a considerably larger number of staff employed full time compared to ten years ago. So what we have seen in the recent past is a massive increase in investment in education by the state that is not generally acknowledged by the public or trade unions.
To illustrate how significant this investment has been lets look a little deeper at the statistics.
In 1985 there were 552,528 students in primary education. Today there are 480,000, a reduction of 72,528 pupils. Within the same time we have seen an increase in the number of teachers by over 10,000 full time staff. So while student numbers have fallen significantly teacher numbers have increased by a roughly a third. But lets not forget this investment was necessary as we were making up lost ground to bring our standards up to our European neighbours.
The expenditure per student for primary, secondary and third level education has increased significantly in the past ten years from €3,313, €4,949 and €8,927 respectively in 1998 to €6,546, €9,447 and €11,368 in 2008. That's an increase between 100% for primary education to 20% for third level in the last ten years.
In every respect one has to acknowledge that in a short time we have come an enormous distance. The facts speak plainly when it comes to education; we have never had it so good.
The State has invested in education enormously over the past ten years. This money, however, has principally been spent on salaries and not on educational infrastructure. Hence, the substandard quality of infrastructure used by many schools around Ireland, which in some cases comprises entirely of leaky, cold and poorly insulated prefabs.
As with other sectors of the public sector we have seen a massive investment in human resources in hiring additional staff. In parallel with the huge increase in staff numbers has also come a significant increase in salary costs over the past ten years.
One of the problems that now confronts us is how we pay for this as a nation going forward.
If we cannot pay for it, what do we do? Do we cut numbers or cut costs? For in the next ten years we must find over €12 billion in savings to deal with the critical state of the public finances. This critical state has us borrowing €70 million a day to pay for our public sector costs alone.
If we look at what the situation is elsewhere it might help enlighten us as to how we may manage our costs in the difficult years ahead.
A typical secondary teacher in Ireland after nine years service earns approximately €56,000 and this figure rises annually thereafter; in the UK it is capped for life at €40,100 (save for annual inflation rises). In every respect after nine years service to be able to earn €56,000 is a very significant salary especially for a job that is also compensated with 18 weeks paid holidays a year. In reality what this means is that for someone who takes up employment as a secondary school teacher at 24, by the time they are 33 they will be guaranteed an income of €56,000, 18 weeks holidays and a guaranteed pension.
If we were paying similar wages to the UK for secondary school teachers, where they have a much greater tax base to pay for public sector salaries, we would see an approximate reduction of €433 million a year in operational staff budgets for secondary education alone. That's a lot of money. The figure for third level would be even higher approaching one billion euros as academics and lecturers in Ireland are paid significantly more in Ireland than their European counterparts.
The reality, which we don’t want to accept, is that we are a very small country and cannot really afford to pay the many very generous public sector salaries awarded in this country. It will be impossible to make significant savings in the education budget without impacting on services provided unless payroll costs are revised. This reminds me of a scenario I had as an employer back in 2002 when I wanted to take on additional staff and increase the salaries of new staff in my organization but did not have the budget available to do so. I knew that in order for the business to develop in difficult times something had to give. My response was not to take a pay-rise that was due to me but rather use this money to reward and keep the existing staff on my payroll. For me this was a relatively simple decision; I knew my job would be made a lot more difficult if staff left. How many I wonder in the public sector would be willing to take a pay cut to keep their colleagues in employment? From what we hear from the Unions, no one is willing to compromise. What we have seen in some public sector organisations, however, is part time staff losing their jobs by the hundreds and thousands while their full time colleagues get pay rises. Payroll costs have increased while numbers employed have decreased. This is a shocking indictment of our country and character.
What we need right now, more than ever, is national unity, which requires public sector employees and their unions to acknowledge reality. The taxpayer and the public sector must come to accept the reality that we have a public sector bubble that we can no longer afford. We all agree that we must invest in education and services but this does not mean that we go bankrupt doing so. Something must give and it has to be a reduction in salaries back to European norms.
Hallowe’en Trick or Cheat, Seanad Eireann and pretending to be what you’re not.
What’s the connection between Halloween, Simply Red, the Labour party and public money?
Hallowe’en is all about wearing a costume and pretending to be what you are not; a bit like a Senator who wishes they were a TD but didn’t get elected.
If like me you left school in the 1980s you certainly remember that hit single by Simply Red from 1985 called “Monies too tight to mention”. Well, if ever there was a song to represent the depression of the 80s this was it. It also represented the working man’s plight and the rise in public popularity of Labour Party politics. Perhaps now that we are living in the worst recession since the 1930s, this song should be re-released.
So what’s this got to do with public money and the labour party you might ask? I’ll tell you what. Over the past four years, as reported in the Sunday Tribune and Sunday Business Post, 95 politicians who have served as Senators have claimed more than €10.57million in expenses. Among them is Labour Senator Michael McCarthy from Dunmanway who has claimed over €240,000 in expenses between the period 2005 and 2008 alone. That equates to taking home an average of €60,000 on top of an annual salary of €70,000. This amounts to the staggering sum of €130,000 per annum. Over his 9 years as a Senator, Michael McCarthy has earned approximately over 1 million in salary and expenses.
Where else would one have the ability to earn this enormous salary with little or no experience and with the added bonus of having a work year that requires just 100 days or less in office?
The majority of expenses were claimed for travel and subsistence payments for attending Seanad Eireann. Yet, a study by RTE’s ‘The Week in Politics’ programme found that, from May to January 09, only three senators had attended all 55 Seanad Eireann votes. In simple terms, only three actually turned up to work and vote on legislation or Oireachtas business when they were required. That’s three out of the total number of 60 Senators, a mere 5% of the Senate members, who have a 100% attendance rate.
The question begs as to how a figure of more than €10.57million has been claimed by Senators when the level of attendance by many of them is so abysmally low?
Moreoever, what have the opposition parties have to say about this, particularily, the Labour Party in light of their demands that John O’Donoghue resign for his gross misuse of public funds? Surely they intend to lead by example? Well, it wouldn’t appear so. The Study by RTE showed that the Labour Party Senators were in the bottom five of members in voting attendance. Yes that’s correct: the bottom five. One must ask what the Labour Senators are actually doing when between them they are costing the taxpayer more than one million a year to sit as Senators? Furthermore, how can Senator McCarthy claim over €60,000 a year in travel and subsistence when he is not present for Seanad business as reported by RTE?
I, for one, would like answers to these questions. In a time when the public are seeking greater transparency on how public monies are spent or where they could be spent, one must question the value we are getting for OUR money. Let us not forget that our taxed income is paying for this extravagance.
Staying local, I would like to know why Senator McCarthy voted only 15 times out of 55 in the 6 month period between May and January 2009. That’s an attendance record of 27% for a position with a combined salary and expenses of over €130,000. I find these facts and figures truly scandalous. In the private sector any employee who presented such a record of employment would be sacked immediately. In any other working democratic institution in the developed world, such individuals would be forced to resign from office, yet here in Ireland they carry on without reproach.
Have we as a nation completely lost our ability to govern? It appears that we have created a generation of self-serving politicians who see their office as one of entitlement with no concept of reality as experienced by the citizens of this state that pay for their privileges. All Oireachtas members are required to comply with a code of ethics as represented in the Ethics in Public Office Act, which sets out the standards of conduct and integrity expected to be observed by the members in the performance of their official duties. The Code of Conduct states that in performing their official duties, members must apply public resources prudently and only for the purposes for which they are intended.
Given the above, one would conclude that since Senator McCarthy’s voting record on Senate business illustrates only a 27% participation rate, it could be reasonably suggested that he repay €95,000 to the State for expenses and salary claimed for non-attendance on Seanad business. These are after all monies the taxpayer paid. Neither I nor anyone working in the public or private sector, would be allowed to claim expenses for work when records show non-attendance. Surely this would not be tolerated? Certainly, not in the real world.
A 27% voting record does not demonstrate, even in the wildest imaginations of public service, value for money and is nothing short of contemptible. Such behavior by Senator McCarthy and his colleagues demonstrates conduct unbecoming of office holders and brings the integrity of their office and the houses of the Oireachtas into serious disrepute. This is not acceptable and cannot be tolerated now or in any circumstance, especially when the state is cutting funding for essential social and health services elsewhere. The idiom “a penny wise and pound stupid” comes to mind.
Senators are only required to sit for a maximum of 2 days a week and actually attend Seanad Eireann for less than 100 days a year. It is for some a part-time job albeit an enormously well-paid one. This privileged position brings with it a salary of €70,000 per annum plus expenses. However, one should look a little deeper, for example, the cost of Senator McCarthy’s expenses for each day’s attendance would equate to over €1,300 per day to the taxpayer. Were one to take into consideration his 27% voting attendance record this could be recalculated at a staggering cost of €4,815 per day for his participation in Seanad Business.
How can this be justified? If someone feels that they can justify their job with a 27% attendance then clearly that position is not required. Not even the most talented career professional could demand this level of remuneration, not even for a two day week; such waste of public finances is nothing short of a national disgrace. And all this from one of the next generation of career politicians who proudly claims on his website “McCarthy’s around when others can’t be found”.
More like “Others around and McCarthy’s nowhere to be found”.
Hallowe’en is all about wearing a costume and pretending to be what you are not; a bit like a Senator who wishes they were a TD but didn’t get elected.
If like me you left school in the 1980s you certainly remember that hit single by Simply Red from 1985 called “Monies too tight to mention”. Well, if ever there was a song to represent the depression of the 80s this was it. It also represented the working man’s plight and the rise in public popularity of Labour Party politics. Perhaps now that we are living in the worst recession since the 1930s, this song should be re-released.
So what’s this got to do with public money and the labour party you might ask? I’ll tell you what. Over the past four years, as reported in the Sunday Tribune and Sunday Business Post, 95 politicians who have served as Senators have claimed more than €10.57million in expenses. Among them is Labour Senator Michael McCarthy from Dunmanway who has claimed over €240,000 in expenses between the period 2005 and 2008 alone. That equates to taking home an average of €60,000 on top of an annual salary of €70,000. This amounts to the staggering sum of €130,000 per annum. Over his 9 years as a Senator, Michael McCarthy has earned approximately over 1 million in salary and expenses.
Where else would one have the ability to earn this enormous salary with little or no experience and with the added bonus of having a work year that requires just 100 days or less in office?
The majority of expenses were claimed for travel and subsistence payments for attending Seanad Eireann. Yet, a study by RTE’s ‘The Week in Politics’ programme found that, from May to January 09, only three senators had attended all 55 Seanad Eireann votes. In simple terms, only three actually turned up to work and vote on legislation or Oireachtas business when they were required. That’s three out of the total number of 60 Senators, a mere 5% of the Senate members, who have a 100% attendance rate.
The question begs as to how a figure of more than €10.57million has been claimed by Senators when the level of attendance by many of them is so abysmally low?
Moreoever, what have the opposition parties have to say about this, particularily, the Labour Party in light of their demands that John O’Donoghue resign for his gross misuse of public funds? Surely they intend to lead by example? Well, it wouldn’t appear so. The Study by RTE showed that the Labour Party Senators were in the bottom five of members in voting attendance. Yes that’s correct: the bottom five. One must ask what the Labour Senators are actually doing when between them they are costing the taxpayer more than one million a year to sit as Senators? Furthermore, how can Senator McCarthy claim over €60,000 a year in travel and subsistence when he is not present for Seanad business as reported by RTE?
I, for one, would like answers to these questions. In a time when the public are seeking greater transparency on how public monies are spent or where they could be spent, one must question the value we are getting for OUR money. Let us not forget that our taxed income is paying for this extravagance.
Staying local, I would like to know why Senator McCarthy voted only 15 times out of 55 in the 6 month period between May and January 2009. That’s an attendance record of 27% for a position with a combined salary and expenses of over €130,000. I find these facts and figures truly scandalous. In the private sector any employee who presented such a record of employment would be sacked immediately. In any other working democratic institution in the developed world, such individuals would be forced to resign from office, yet here in Ireland they carry on without reproach.
Have we as a nation completely lost our ability to govern? It appears that we have created a generation of self-serving politicians who see their office as one of entitlement with no concept of reality as experienced by the citizens of this state that pay for their privileges. All Oireachtas members are required to comply with a code of ethics as represented in the Ethics in Public Office Act, which sets out the standards of conduct and integrity expected to be observed by the members in the performance of their official duties. The Code of Conduct states that in performing their official duties, members must apply public resources prudently and only for the purposes for which they are intended.
Given the above, one would conclude that since Senator McCarthy’s voting record on Senate business illustrates only a 27% participation rate, it could be reasonably suggested that he repay €95,000 to the State for expenses and salary claimed for non-attendance on Seanad business. These are after all monies the taxpayer paid. Neither I nor anyone working in the public or private sector, would be allowed to claim expenses for work when records show non-attendance. Surely this would not be tolerated? Certainly, not in the real world.
A 27% voting record does not demonstrate, even in the wildest imaginations of public service, value for money and is nothing short of contemptible. Such behavior by Senator McCarthy and his colleagues demonstrates conduct unbecoming of office holders and brings the integrity of their office and the houses of the Oireachtas into serious disrepute. This is not acceptable and cannot be tolerated now or in any circumstance, especially when the state is cutting funding for essential social and health services elsewhere. The idiom “a penny wise and pound stupid” comes to mind.
Senators are only required to sit for a maximum of 2 days a week and actually attend Seanad Eireann for less than 100 days a year. It is for some a part-time job albeit an enormously well-paid one. This privileged position brings with it a salary of €70,000 per annum plus expenses. However, one should look a little deeper, for example, the cost of Senator McCarthy’s expenses for each day’s attendance would equate to over €1,300 per day to the taxpayer. Were one to take into consideration his 27% voting attendance record this could be recalculated at a staggering cost of €4,815 per day for his participation in Seanad Business.
How can this be justified? If someone feels that they can justify their job with a 27% attendance then clearly that position is not required. Not even the most talented career professional could demand this level of remuneration, not even for a two day week; such waste of public finances is nothing short of a national disgrace. And all this from one of the next generation of career politicians who proudly claims on his website “McCarthy’s around when others can’t be found”.
More like “Others around and McCarthy’s nowhere to be found”.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
The Politics of History rather than the Politics of the Future.
When does an economist becomes and environmentalist. For anyone who watched David McWilliams programme Peak Everything this week, you might find this article by John Gibbons on McWilliams becoming a devoted ecologist in the Irish Times an interesting read. David used a lot of information that i have been presenting on climate change and sustainability over the past 18 months to organizations and communities. Information and ideas that i also spoke about with people when i decided to run in the local election earlier this year. This was why I ran, to try and get this message out to as many people as possible which i did by circulating information to 14,000 households. Thats why even thought i didnt get elected i was happy that over 3500 people gave me a 1-5 preference vote. People are beginning to listen. I was delighted with the programme, i can no longer be regarded as a radical when someone such a D. McWilliams starts quoting the same information and references as I do. When it comes to NAMA and the financial crises we aint seen nothing yet. My concern with NAMA is however that we are investing in a the failed and unsustainable system rather than using this money to invest in our communities, an alternative future, a new beginning. That's what it's all about ? the politics of history rather than the politics of the future.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Climate Change One Year On.
As the rain pelted against my window today I reflected on the fact that we have less than 50days left to the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen. Almost one year ago I organized an International climate change conference here in Cork. I came across today the notes that I used in my opening speech to delegates attending. I thought I would share my comments and views of that day as they are even more relevant today in the mist of our current financial uncertainty. With all the media attention on the financial chaos one might think that climate change has gone away, it hasn't, its worst than we even considered one year ago.
Anyway this is what I said:
Let me begin by saying thanks to all of you who’ve traveled here today, for giving of your time to this event.
We all made this journey for a reason.
By being here today you have shown that you are concerned about our future, perhaps wishing to learn more about climate change and how each of us may work individually and together to tackle the enormous challenges that lie ahead.
That’s the journey we are on today.
I organized this conference motivated by a single, simple powerful idea, that I might play a small part in building a better future. We are all our future has to work with, each of us here today will play a part in deciding that future. It is up to us.
Never before was so much knowledge available to so many capable of understanding and acting. We are the most prosperous educated generation ever sustained by our planet.
Now science has presented us with a profound message, it is a imminent reality that can bring about the destruction of humanity.
Together we bear the biggest responsibility ever borne in our history.
We are the generation that can decide the faith of billions of people, the faith of our species and the natural world which sustains all life on this planet rest’s on our shoulders. It is an extraordinary responsibility.
Our time will be regarded as the most important opportunity for humanity to prove its intellect and resolve.
We must ask, do we realize this?
In the past two years the world has reached an unprecedented level of awareness on climate change yet it appears the public are not moved to react.
It is critical that we begin to engage reality. We still have an opportunity to act and to minimize the level of devastation that climate change will bring about.
The promise of a green technological and industrial revolution is at hand; a new age of green economics and truly sustainable development.
The possibility of a shift to renewable sources of energy is now available to us along with more efficient public transport, energy conservation and sustainable development.
It will require political leadership supported by an informed public.
The shift to a greener economy needs urgent assistance; we cannot wait for the economic conditions to improve as the costs of inaction – in ecological, human and financial terms – will far exceed the costs of action now.
Are we willing to deal with the challenge?
As a society we are distracted from reality and encouraged to go on living unsustainable lives as if climate change was science fiction, its time to wake up.
You may not know it but we live in a society where we are considered to be amongst the top 1% of the world’s population.
We as a society are one of the largest contributors of greenhouse gas emissions per capita of any nation on the world.
As a nation and individually we have a long and difficult path to take and it won’t be easy, we’ll have to make hard choices and although Governments will play a crucial role in bringing about the changes we need, each of us here today, in our own lives will have to accept responsibility for educating the wider community in which we live, sharing our knowledge and together help change the way society views the world.
We don’t have must time.
I believe we can transform our society, we can transform our nation, we can turn this crisis of climate change into a moment of opportunity for innovation and job creation and an incentive for business. This conference must be a vehicle to push us forward to a common purpose. That is the purpose here today for me. If you see, as I see, an alternative future, a more sustainable way of living, you must believe that you can make a difference.
I myself like many of you here today was influenced by distinguished scientists such as our esteemed colleagues here today Professor Robert Devoy and Professor Colin Woodroffe who were lead authors and contributors to the UN IPCC Climate Change 4th Assessment report which received the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.
I thank sincerely Dr Pachauri who received that price on behalf of the IPCC team for taking time to make his address for us here in Cork today, and to all the other distinguished participants in particular Dr James Hansen for his live presentation later today from the USA, and to Minister John Gormley for taking time out of his busy schedule to open this conference, I would like to acknowledge their work and dedication to which we all owe a great debt of gratitude.
We have today some of the most distinguished scientists, experts and civic leaders on climate change in the world addressing this event. I am immensely proud and honored that they have all willingly given of their time to share their knowledge and experience with each of us here today. For me this is thee most significant climate change educational event yet to have occurred in this country.
This would not have happened without the support and generosity of our main sponsors, EnviroManagement Services and Bord Gais. For that I would like to thank John Mullins the CEO of Bord Gais and oddly myself as EnviroManagement Services. To add to the uniqueness of this remarkable event is the generous third level and second level sponsor programme’s we have facilitated.
No conference on climate change is effective without the inclusion of the most important generation. To the student delegates here today representing secondary school’s in Cork city and county I am grateful to your sponsors the Change campaign, SWS Natural Resources and Arups Consulting Engineers for their generous support and providing much needed financial assistance to the running cost of this event.
As this is science week it is remarkable and encouraging that we are sponsoring so many schools and universities to attend this event. To all the third level students from around Ireland I thank you for coming and your sponsor NTR for their key sponsorship. Last but not least to our other key sponsors that have made this day possible, SWS Group, Musgrave Group, Trocaire, the EPA and BT for further reducing our carbon footprint and providing the technology for live video conference today without which some of our speakers would not be able to participate.
A vital aspect of the conference is not just about raising awareness here but assisting communities in developing countries. I hope through this conference and your attendance here today that Partnership for change can be able to provide a solar power initiative for a entire community that has no access to electricity, in addition to benefiting other charities and environmental organizations.
For some of you here today this will be your first experience of such an event, I hope that we do not disappoint. I know that here today we will witness the seeds of new vision and leadership for the next generation. We are all part of the problem of climate change and global warming. Today you are part of the solution.
Anyway this is what I said:
Let me begin by saying thanks to all of you who’ve traveled here today, for giving of your time to this event.
We all made this journey for a reason.
By being here today you have shown that you are concerned about our future, perhaps wishing to learn more about climate change and how each of us may work individually and together to tackle the enormous challenges that lie ahead.
That’s the journey we are on today.
I organized this conference motivated by a single, simple powerful idea, that I might play a small part in building a better future. We are all our future has to work with, each of us here today will play a part in deciding that future. It is up to us.
Never before was so much knowledge available to so many capable of understanding and acting. We are the most prosperous educated generation ever sustained by our planet.
Now science has presented us with a profound message, it is a imminent reality that can bring about the destruction of humanity.
Together we bear the biggest responsibility ever borne in our history.
We are the generation that can decide the faith of billions of people, the faith of our species and the natural world which sustains all life on this planet rest’s on our shoulders. It is an extraordinary responsibility.
Our time will be regarded as the most important opportunity for humanity to prove its intellect and resolve.
We must ask, do we realize this?
In the past two years the world has reached an unprecedented level of awareness on climate change yet it appears the public are not moved to react.
It is critical that we begin to engage reality. We still have an opportunity to act and to minimize the level of devastation that climate change will bring about.
The promise of a green technological and industrial revolution is at hand; a new age of green economics and truly sustainable development.
The possibility of a shift to renewable sources of energy is now available to us along with more efficient public transport, energy conservation and sustainable development.
It will require political leadership supported by an informed public.
The shift to a greener economy needs urgent assistance; we cannot wait for the economic conditions to improve as the costs of inaction – in ecological, human and financial terms – will far exceed the costs of action now.
Are we willing to deal with the challenge?
As a society we are distracted from reality and encouraged to go on living unsustainable lives as if climate change was science fiction, its time to wake up.
You may not know it but we live in a society where we are considered to be amongst the top 1% of the world’s population.
We as a society are one of the largest contributors of greenhouse gas emissions per capita of any nation on the world.
As a nation and individually we have a long and difficult path to take and it won’t be easy, we’ll have to make hard choices and although Governments will play a crucial role in bringing about the changes we need, each of us here today, in our own lives will have to accept responsibility for educating the wider community in which we live, sharing our knowledge and together help change the way society views the world.
We don’t have must time.
I believe we can transform our society, we can transform our nation, we can turn this crisis of climate change into a moment of opportunity for innovation and job creation and an incentive for business. This conference must be a vehicle to push us forward to a common purpose. That is the purpose here today for me. If you see, as I see, an alternative future, a more sustainable way of living, you must believe that you can make a difference.
I myself like many of you here today was influenced by distinguished scientists such as our esteemed colleagues here today Professor Robert Devoy and Professor Colin Woodroffe who were lead authors and contributors to the UN IPCC Climate Change 4th Assessment report which received the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.
I thank sincerely Dr Pachauri who received that price on behalf of the IPCC team for taking time to make his address for us here in Cork today, and to all the other distinguished participants in particular Dr James Hansen for his live presentation later today from the USA, and to Minister John Gormley for taking time out of his busy schedule to open this conference, I would like to acknowledge their work and dedication to which we all owe a great debt of gratitude.
We have today some of the most distinguished scientists, experts and civic leaders on climate change in the world addressing this event. I am immensely proud and honored that they have all willingly given of their time to share their knowledge and experience with each of us here today. For me this is thee most significant climate change educational event yet to have occurred in this country.
This would not have happened without the support and generosity of our main sponsors, EnviroManagement Services and Bord Gais. For that I would like to thank John Mullins the CEO of Bord Gais and oddly myself as EnviroManagement Services. To add to the uniqueness of this remarkable event is the generous third level and second level sponsor programme’s we have facilitated.
No conference on climate change is effective without the inclusion of the most important generation. To the student delegates here today representing secondary school’s in Cork city and county I am grateful to your sponsors the Change campaign, SWS Natural Resources and Arups Consulting Engineers for their generous support and providing much needed financial assistance to the running cost of this event.
As this is science week it is remarkable and encouraging that we are sponsoring so many schools and universities to attend this event. To all the third level students from around Ireland I thank you for coming and your sponsor NTR for their key sponsorship. Last but not least to our other key sponsors that have made this day possible, SWS Group, Musgrave Group, Trocaire, the EPA and BT for further reducing our carbon footprint and providing the technology for live video conference today without which some of our speakers would not be able to participate.
A vital aspect of the conference is not just about raising awareness here but assisting communities in developing countries. I hope through this conference and your attendance here today that Partnership for change can be able to provide a solar power initiative for a entire community that has no access to electricity, in addition to benefiting other charities and environmental organizations.
For some of you here today this will be your first experience of such an event, I hope that we do not disappoint. I know that here today we will witness the seeds of new vision and leadership for the next generation. We are all part of the problem of climate change and global warming. Today you are part of the solution.
Monday, October 19, 2009
NAMA a failed business plan to protect private equity
NAMA is a colossal misdirection and waste of public resources, a financial ballot of institutions that have corrupted our democracy and damaged our society condemning hundreds of thousands to negative equity, bankruptcy and un-employment.
The root cause of this is greed and selfishness and a tangled skein of institutions grown up to express and protect them. NAMA represents not only a failure of truth and justice but illustrates how politics, the economy, society, you and every taxpayer is now subject to the control of financial markets and institutions.
It is exceedingly difficult for the public to understand how Irish Banks as independent financial institutions who made billions in profit for private shareholders in the past few years, now seek a colossal financial ballot from the taxpayer. These very institutions exposed themselves and their shareholders to financial risks totaling, well over 90 billion a figure so vast in the context of Irish history that one searches in vain for any relevant historical parallel.
In 2005 Anglo Irish Bank reported a profit of 685million euros and over 1billion profit in 2007. This profit was shared out amongst its main shareholders including Sean Quinn a 15% shareholder of the bank, Invesco 5% shareholder, Swiss Bank 6% shareholder, Dresdner 7% shareholder and Janus Capitol a 5.5% shareholder.
These shareholders accepted the business plan of the board of directors of the bank that providing over 67billion in loans in 2007 largely for property developments and purchase of development lands in Ireland and abroad that were widely overvalued and should have been regarded as high risk investments. Yet it is now the Irish taxpayer who is being told that we have no choice but to recapitalize such risky credit institutions.
The NAMA legislation is being introduced to protect credit institutions that are of systemic important to the economy of the state. We the public need to demand of our Minister for finance who has ultimate responsibility for selecting which credit institutions are protected by NAMA to explain to the members of the Oireachtas and the public why it is that Anglo Irish Bank, an insolvent institution, is of systematic important to the Irish economy.
Is NAMA protecting its shareholders and business partners who took a risk on equities and investments that have failed? NAMA is now calling on the taxpayer to provide a multibillion bailout to a failed economic system at a time of soaring job losses and widespread economic turmoil. By injecting almost 30 billion euro in Anglo Irish Bank to overpay for assets that are now significantly devalued is a crime. A failed bank and a failed financial system is being sold to us to ensure the survival of a few greedy individuals on the backs of the sacrifices of the many.
How we deal with this current crisis will provide a clear indication of how as a society we may face the real challenges of the 21st century, climate change, food and energy security, over consumption, the challenge of diminishing resources and increasing population. Based on the current situation right now the future doesn’t look to bright.
The root cause of this is greed and selfishness and a tangled skein of institutions grown up to express and protect them. NAMA represents not only a failure of truth and justice but illustrates how politics, the economy, society, you and every taxpayer is now subject to the control of financial markets and institutions.
It is exceedingly difficult for the public to understand how Irish Banks as independent financial institutions who made billions in profit for private shareholders in the past few years, now seek a colossal financial ballot from the taxpayer. These very institutions exposed themselves and their shareholders to financial risks totaling, well over 90 billion a figure so vast in the context of Irish history that one searches in vain for any relevant historical parallel.
In 2005 Anglo Irish Bank reported a profit of 685million euros and over 1billion profit in 2007. This profit was shared out amongst its main shareholders including Sean Quinn a 15% shareholder of the bank, Invesco 5% shareholder, Swiss Bank 6% shareholder, Dresdner 7% shareholder and Janus Capitol a 5.5% shareholder.
These shareholders accepted the business plan of the board of directors of the bank that providing over 67billion in loans in 2007 largely for property developments and purchase of development lands in Ireland and abroad that were widely overvalued and should have been regarded as high risk investments. Yet it is now the Irish taxpayer who is being told that we have no choice but to recapitalize such risky credit institutions.
The NAMA legislation is being introduced to protect credit institutions that are of systemic important to the economy of the state. We the public need to demand of our Minister for finance who has ultimate responsibility for selecting which credit institutions are protected by NAMA to explain to the members of the Oireachtas and the public why it is that Anglo Irish Bank, an insolvent institution, is of systematic important to the Irish economy.
Is NAMA protecting its shareholders and business partners who took a risk on equities and investments that have failed? NAMA is now calling on the taxpayer to provide a multibillion bailout to a failed economic system at a time of soaring job losses and widespread economic turmoil. By injecting almost 30 billion euro in Anglo Irish Bank to overpay for assets that are now significantly devalued is a crime. A failed bank and a failed financial system is being sold to us to ensure the survival of a few greedy individuals on the backs of the sacrifices of the many.
How we deal with this current crisis will provide a clear indication of how as a society we may face the real challenges of the 21st century, climate change, food and energy security, over consumption, the challenge of diminishing resources and increasing population. Based on the current situation right now the future doesn’t look to bright.
Crunch Time for Politics
Let me start by saying that I’ve written this as a member of the Green Party who objected to the NAMA legislation. At the recent Green Party conference, I was one of a few speakers to offer contributions on both the NAMA legislation and the revised programme for government.
I wish to outline to your readers my personal views on both these important issues so that you may understand that not all within the Green Party accept that the Programme For Government (PFG) or the NAMA legislation represent the best outcome for the taxpayer in these difficult times.
First, let me begin with why the convention was called. The Green Party constitution allows for a special convention when at least five electoral groups submit a request to the National Executive Committee (NEC) on this occasion, to decide the position of the party to the proposed NAMA legislation.
Media commentators and opposition political parties have made negative comments about the relative small number of Green Party members deciding government policy. I would be of the opinion that it highly desirable in a democracy that members of political parties can call a special convention to review how a political party is performing in government (or opposition), allowing members an open and frank opportunity to express their views and concerns regarding the performance of their elected politicians.
The weakness lies in the fact that no other political party allows for such openness and access to ministers and politicians and for this reason I would praise the Green Party for its willingness to engage with its members especially in such tumultuous times.
I took the convention very seriously, devoting many hours prior to the convention in attempting to understand the significance of the NAMA proposal and alternatives, while seeking council from professionals in the financial sector, businesses and members of the public on whether it was indeed in the best interest of our nation for this legislation to be introduced in its current format. I was not alone in this endeavor as many Green Party members did likewise.
As a political party, it has devoted more time than any other party and perhaps than all other parties combined, to debating the NAMA legislation. The Green Party have facilitated three party seminars and a party convention devoted entirely to NAMA. Many hundreds of members from across Ireland have attended these events at their own time and personal cost. It has been debated at branch meetings, at local and national level. Therefore it would seem that NAMA has been debated more within the Green Party membership than any other party in the state. So I would say to detractors that while we may be a minority party, its members clearly take their responsibilities very seriously.
Notwithstanding the above I was disappointed with the Convention for many reasons. The convention was called primarily to debate the NAMA legislation and unfortunately the PFG re-negotiations overshadowed the occasion dealing a serious blow on the day to any attempt to properly debate the NAMA legislation.
I have presented my views on this to the Green Party and they are available for anyone to read openly on my blog website: www.westcorkgreens.blogspot.com
In summary, I stated that I found the manner in which the convention was organised to be worthy of political manipulation.
Despite the clear unease within the Green Party to supporting the NAMA legislation, there was no possibility that the motion to reject NAMA could be won given the procedures and events of the day.
I spoke against the NAMA legislation. I also clearly outlined why I believed the PFG was too aspirational whilst neither being radical enough nor clearly providing transparency on how or when it was going to delivery on many of the 200 items presented in the document. I voted reluctantly for the PFG and only as I noted on the day because I believe that the Green Party ministers are seriously attempting to change how our institutions govern this state from the houses of the Oireachtas to local Government. I voted for the PFG because I believe the Green Party can still make a difference in politics. You can only do this in Government.
In the debate on NAMA, I outlined why I could not morally or ethically accept the legislation in its current format. I stated that the safeguards for the taxpayer were not concrete enough and that if NAMA was the only possibility for safeguarding the taxpayer that it had to be changed. I debated that neither Anglo Irish nor N.I.B. could be regarded as of systemic importance to the Irish state and that both institutions should be liquidated when the current bank guarantee ceases. I suggested that the bank guarantee should be extended when the current guarantee expires to all other banks so that we may attempt to save what we can and use public monies elsewhere where they are urgently needed. A considerable number of likeminded people voted the same as myself, against the NAMA legislation despite the Party’s insistence that it would result in dissolving the Government.
It is not to late for further significant changes to be made to the NAMA legislation. Let us hope that the multifaceted group of experts, people including teachers, farmers, solicitors, social workers, fish exporters, insurance brokers, economists, plant hire businessmen, auctioneers, accountants, publicans, general practitioners, funeral directors and those of no other occupation or professional skill, that make up the elected deputies and Dåil Eireann have the ability to attempt the salvation of our financial system. For many NAMA represents the level of control that the financial sector have not only over our economy but also our political system. Its not unrealistic to suggest that NAMA represents crunch time for politics in Ireland.
Declan Waugh
Thursday, October 15, 2009
NAMA Designations of Failure and Incompetence
I attended some of the Green Party seminars on NAMA where many concerns and suggestions were raised by members but how many of these concerns have been implemented in the current NAMA legislation?
Where there is a clear view within the party that the amendments do not go far enough, it is not good enough in my opinion to vote through the NAMA Bill without clearly explaining to members why:
a) their principle objections or recommendation cannot be facilitated
b) why alternatives will not work
c) why the proposed bill is the best we can deliver
This did not happen at the Green Party Convention last week. No written information or evidence was presented by the party to outline the Government of Green party elected delegates views.
I do not agree with the opinion that by voting against the Bill at the Green Party convention it would bring down the Government. The Bill could have been delayed to facilitate changes to the legislation, a revised Bill could have been voted on as with the Lisbon Treaty with guarantees written into the legislation to support current market realities and the views not just of the Green Party members but also some of the observations of the main opposition parties and many independent economists.
Clearly FF would not have presented the Bill for voting this week where they knew it was going to fail. In reality the Bill (as with the Lisbon Treaty) has to get as much as possible all party agreement to get the public to buy into what is in effect the most significant legislation to be brought before the houses of the Oireachtas in decades. After all it is the public the taxpayer who will be paying for this as they do the salaries of all Oireachtas members.
The outcome of the Green Party meeting in Athlone earlier this summer is os some significance in this debate, it is a fact that only 13 per cent of the attendance at a Green Party conference expressed support for the legislation in its current form, the Nama Bill in its current format came in fourth out of six options placed before Green Party members in Athlone. So what is new in the legislation to reflect this?
The majority of members opinion was that NAMA should pay only the current market rate for loans transferred to the banks yet this has not happened.
The general consensus by all commentators is that NAMA should only apply to credit institutions of systemic importance to the economy. This is my own belief and interestingly one should note the intended purpose of the NAMA legislation itself as stated in Section 2. Part (iv) is “to facilitate restructuring of credit institutions of systemic importance to the economy”
Section 55 part (1) outlines how the Minister will select which financial institutions should be covered by the NAMA legislation. It states that the Minster can designate a credit institution where the Minister is satisfied “the credit institution is systemically important to the financial system in the State”
Neither the green parliamentary party nor the Minister for Finance nor the Government have explained to anyone why Anglo Irish Bank and NIB are systemically important to the financial system in the State.
I do not believe they are and I am not alone in this view.
Further the NAMA business plan presented today raising serious concerns regarding the risks associated with this legislation.
The NAMA business plan estimates an approximate 47% average decline on an aggregate portfolio basis including the impact of declines in overseas markets.
In order to estimate the aggregate current market value of assets to be acquired, it is necessary to estimate the decline in value of the underlying property collateral since the loans
Where this is examined in regard to many large developer loans it is clear that this figure is absolute nonsense. The 85% crash in asset value of the former glass bottle site in Dublin should indicate the real world depreciation that is now evident in the market place.
The courts yesterday reported how EBS are suing three well known businessmen for not paying the interest or loan repayments on a site they purchased in Cork in 2007. This debt will be included in the NAMA loan books. I know this site very well and would be of the opinion that it wold now be valued at approximately €5 million which would support the 85% devaluation in property that occurred with the glass bottle site in Dublin.
We have current hard evidence to show that NAMA valuation is clearly nonsense and furthermore where this is evident the projection in the NAMA business plan of a 15% uplift on the current market value of the collateral of loans identified for transfer is absurd and balderdash.
To add insult to injury the NAMA business plan projections assume that, of the €77 billion nominal value of loans acquired, €62 billion will be repaid by borrowers. This will never happen. Its time for a urgent injection of realism within the political establishment.
My suggestion to the Green Parliamentary party is that they demand that the Minister for Finance must outline why Anglo Irish Bank and NIB are systemically important to the financial system in the State, this is what needs to be done and undertaken urgently in a transparent and proper fashion.
Explain to the members of the Oireachtas and the public why both these institutions cannot fail?
They already have so why put public money which a) we don't have and b) is badly needed elsewhere, into two institutions that are corrupt and will never give a return on the investment.
Such an act could damage the State and our economy irreparably.
Where these institutions are not seen to be of systematic importance, as I believe is the case, they should not be designated as institutions that will benefit from the NAMA legislation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
