Environment

Random entry RSS

  • Posted in:

    Environmental Protection: More Than A Good Idea?

    by

    Caroline Hurley argues that the EPA can and should be doing more to protect Ireland’s vital environment and biodiversity. Situated between the North Atlantic’s main storm tracks, Ireland has always been vulnerable to the weather. In the Royal Irish Academy’s 2020 collection of essays on Climate and Irish Society from prehistoric times, John Sweeney, a Professor of Geography at Maynooth University, explains that while the country was historically a prisoner of climate, struggling to ensure sufficient food, fodder and fuel, the relationship is now reversed. Irish society has lagged in confronting climate change but is now waking up with better monitoring, more public awareness, activism, and international agreements. Environmental protection makes multiple demands. As natural ecosystems degraded during the twentieth century, international climate bodies such as The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change were established. Five years later, the Irish Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was founded in 1993, following the enactment of the EPA Act 1992 and the completion of the first national environmental impact assessment. What Does the EPA Do? According to its website, the EPA commits to delivering good environmental outcomes, based on the best knowledge, regulation, and advocacy. It conducts R&D, issues licences, and is the national body for environment enforcement, strategic review, and water management. As an EPA staff member explained: “We provide knowledge through targeted and timely environmental data, information and assessment to inform decision-making. And, we work with others to advocate for a clean, productive and well-protected environment”. The EPA measures the quality of air, drinking and wastewater, freshwater and seawater, and shares guidance on radiation, noise, climate change and the circular economy. In terms of services and regulated activities, the EPA’s wide remit includes authorising activities impacting the environment or human health. “We carry out monitoring of the quality of our air, our freshwater, groundwater and marine waterbodies and our use of natural resources. Through our research and development programme, we are generating the knowledge and expertise needed to protect and manage Ireland’s environment”. The dearth of environmental representatives, including EPA members, on key State Boards significantly reduces the chance of changing the business-as-usual narrative However, these assurances were challenged by Gerry McGovern in a two-part report on mining published by Hot Press last April, revealing that 28% of the Republic’s total land area is currently cleared for mining prospecting. McGovern states that “A normal member of the public, stressed out with enough worries, will instinctively assume that if the EPA thinks it’s good for the environment, or doesn’t object to it, then everything must be ok…those illusions were badly shaken by almost everyone I spoke to who is opposed to new mining licences being handed out in Ireland”. In 2018, Village highlighted contamination of the Silvermines area and called for a Superfund to clean up 450 polluted sites around the country. After talking to people affected by pollution of land, air and water, particularly in Tipperary and Limerick, McGovern warns of the hazards of light-touch regulation: “The primary role of the EPA is to support government policy. And government policy is to encourage and facilitate mining. As a result, the EPA ends up in the curious – and many would say contradictory – position of having to defend mining activities and interests”. The EPA claims to be a technical rather than political body. Although nominally independent, it derives funding from both government and industry licensing fees. Largely, for now, the EPA generates information for others making decisions, rarely taking preventive or protective action yet, despite its mission statement. If EPA resources are being mobilised for goals besides and perhaps antithetical to environmental protection, the problem of decarbonisation logjams makes more sense. Despite the organisation’s expert teams qualified to be watchdogs and leaders, restrictions mean it may be left to precarious independent researchers to expose truths and demand change. Meanwhile, silent policy affords cover to get rich quick merchants who have no quibbles about inflicting long-lasting environmental ruin. Limits of the EPA The dearth of environmental representatives, including EPA members, on key State Boards, such as Teagasc and the IFA, significantly reduces the chance of changing the business-as-usual narrative. Given the crisis unfolding before us, every policy and decision made across the public-private spectrum should be subject to environmental impact analysis. Conflicting considerations of consequences for wildlife are illustrated by the ESB’s plans for hydroelectricity, and laying of astroturf pitches around Dublin. While the EPA can assess toxicity levels and air quality, for example, it is limited in uncovering the potential health implications of its assessments: “Any research, studies or investigations into the risk or health implications associated with exposure…is a public health matter and so it would be dealt with by public health officials or researchers in this area, which is not within the remit of our organisation”. The problems continue underwater too. Earth scarring by mining on land is more visible than the rapidly spreading technology of sea mining. This industry is already inflicting environmental damage. Interfering with water routes interferes with biodiversity. Offshore wind farms are not exempt from negative impacts on ocean life either. According to a 2019 OECD report on pharmaceutical residues in freshwater: “Laboratory and field tests show traces of oral contraceptives causing the feminisation of fish and amphibians, and residues of psychiatric drugs altering fish behaviour…[and] antimicrobial resistance”. A 2022 paper for the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry Journal reinforces these points: “Overall, the results show that API (active pharmaceutical ingredients) pollution is a global problem that is likely negatively affecting the health of the world’s rivers. To meet the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals, work is urgently needed to tackle the problem and bring concentrations down to an acceptable level”.  Crayfish studies illustrate biodiversity imbalances caused. Levels of carcinogenic chemicals in drinking water are raising concerns too. Researchers have discovered microscopic plastic particles in the fats and lungs of two-thirds of the marine mammals in a study of ocean microplastics. Challenges mutate and multiply. The Environment of the Future? With transnational corporations outgrowing countries, the structural governance

    Loading

    Read more

  • Posted in:

    Opinion: Use of depleted uranium in Ukraine ignores environmental & health consequences

    by

    By Caroline Hurley Military authorities increasingly try to categorise armaments containing depleted uranium (DU) as conventional, despite epidemics of cancers and genetic mutations following their use in Iraq and elsewhere. These arms use nuclear waste and take advantage of the dense weight and flammability of uranium, primarily to penetrate tank metal, of the likes of Leopard 2. Massive stores of DU are now held in the Netherlands (Almelo), Germany (Lingen) and the UK, since the cessation of arrangements to send nuclear waste to Russia for dumping. An estimated one million tons of the poison had been produced in the world by 2016. Re-use for genocidal ecocidal destruction is a highly questionable recycling choice, showing up the entire nuclear industry as a redundant albatross. DU features in radioactive shielding and in aircraft, forklifts, and boat keels for weight. The National Crime Prevention Office oversees a small number of high-activity field sources in Ireland e.g. radioactive material to sterilise medical equipment, and radiography, which requires secure transport in solid containers. Nuclear-powered marine vessels, and vessels carrying nuclear material or other radiation-emitting materials, are expressly prohibited from entering an Irish harbour without prior dispensation, under Section 52 of the Harbours Act 1996. In contrast, the aerosol powder released on impact and combustion of DU munitions can potentially contaminate wide areas, depending on weather, and result in the inhalation of radioactive nanoparticles. Since uranium 238 has a half-life of 4.5 billion years, any harms spreading worldwide are cumulative. Health conditions like those observed after the Chernobyl accident have been noted since the first use of DU weapons in 1991. Survivors of bombings in Iraq, Bosnia, Somalia, Serbia, Syria, the Lebanon and Afghanistan share far higher rates of cancer, deformities, blood diseases and other symptoms than the military personnel who struck them. Overburdened health and social services struggle to cope, no matter how NGOs try patching things up. Will that be Ukraine’s fate? Abandoning compassion is the ultimate crime against the biosphere’s endangered future The WHO/IAEA Agreement (WHA12-40) of 28 May 1959, giving the IAEA power of veto over WHO’s activities. Similar “agreements” constrain other UN agencies. Rather than being independent, the IAEA’s objective to promote nuclear power is enshrined in its constitution, requiring the WHO to remain subservient in matters of radiation and health. This conflict of interest may prejudice decisions. Research on tissue damage from low-level radiation by John Gofman, and Helen Caldicott’s consciousness-raising about related diseases, garnered official opprobrium. UN brush-offs ring hollow e.g. “The results of the radiological assessments conducted by IAEA in cooperation with UNEP and WHO provide the basis for public reassurance”. An international campaign calls for WHO to be independent of the nuclear lobby. Disquiet about WHO governance extends to other areas, including pandemic management, power imbalances, and funder influence. Top-down WHO regulatory controls being drafted are failing to please everybody. DU releases mainly alpha radiation, which wreaks havoc on internal organs. The EPA does not monitor for DU in the environment but focuses on radioactivity sources normally delivering the highest radiation doses to members of the Irish public – namely, exposure to radon gas, medical exposures, cosmic radiation, terrestrial gamma radiation (which includes natural uranium), radioactivity in food and drinking water and occupational exposures. Atmospheric radioactivity due to depleted uranium is not a significant source of exposure to members of the Irish public when compared to those mentioned above, according to the EPA, while accepting that Uranium 238 has a half-life of 4.5 billion years and emits alpha radiation not routinely monitored. The EPA reports no evidence from Ukraine of nuclear weapon use or power plant leaks (yet) and points out that DU is less radioactive than natural uranium, is used commercially, and DU weapons are not nuclear. But the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Instead, emerging reports of harm should spur further studies, as the inbuilt societal systemic response. During the Iraq war, German (Bavarian), Austrian and Swiss scientists detected traces of DU in air and soil samples. Conversely, no testing means no information and silent risk. Since DU’s first military deployment, the trend of rising cancer rates among young people worldwide is attracting attention. After more than 15 tons of uranium bombs were dropped on Yugoslavia in 1999, over 4,000 citizens of Serbia, including Kosovo and Metohija, are suing NATO for causing their cancers. 400 have already died. More than 30,000 people are now diagnosed with cancer each year, compared to fewer than 7,000 cases before 1999. Blood analysis shows 500 times more metal than normal. Healthcare services are already being stripped back and exploited for profit. Entities like Physicians for Social Responsibility, and SHAPE are trying to reverse this trend. The Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) collates facts and updates. Other nuclear watch organisations include ICAN, the UN’s Unfold Zero, Arms Control Association, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, and World Beyond War. The International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons focuses primarily on DU usage in war, “since its residuals prolong the war into an indefinite time. The aim of the coalition is to ban DU weapons, eliminate the environmental damage caused by uranium weapons, help the victims, and prevent future damage from such weapons and actions”. UN inertia persists as member states refuse to comply with principles, but credible evidence and expert warnings mount. Primum non Nocere (first, do no harm)? 2022 research recognises that “Uranium contamination has become a nonnegligible global health problem” about which understanding is “still at a preliminary stage”. However, the US EPA clearly warns that DU is a “serious health hazard”. Britain has admitted sending DU weapons to Ukraine, while Europe goes along with the ammunition-as-solution fantasy by obligingly arranging more arms production, which only builds momentum towards more wars. Where are the leaders who care more for life than for economics? Similar warnings from parties such as the IPPNW, and the Organization of Doctors for the Prevention of Nuclear War, are gathering. A lawyer for 400 sick Italian soldiers exposed to DU cautioned Britain to “think about the risks and the consequences”

    Loading

    Read more

  • Posted in:

    Tubridy’s environmental heedlessness is on show with his motors.

    by

    RTE’s lead talent has rarely covered environmental topics and the range of gas-guzzling cars he drives goes some way to explain why. By Conor O’Carroll. Amid the ongoing controversy over payments made to Ryan Tubridy through a barter account by RTÉ as part of a sponsorship arrangement with Renault, his relationship with cars ought to be examined. Particularly against the background of the dramatic lack of environmental coverage showcased on his TV and radio shows down the years. Last week, People Before Profit TD, Paul Murphy, told the Dáil that The Late Late Show had covered climate change just twice in its history, questioning whether sponsors were exerting editorial influence over the show’s production. Renault has been the show’s main sponsor for eight years – the longest in its history – and details of the agreement between Renault, RTÉ and Tubridy are now the focus of intense public scrutiny. And it is difficult to forget Tubridy’s controversial comments on RTÉ Radio 1 back in 2019, where he criticised climate campaigner Greta Thunberg’s impassioned speech to a United Nations summit. He claimed that watching her, he wasn’t thinking about the climate. Instead, he appeared to focus on her appearance, describing “her face contorted in pain, in agony and in anxiety”, adding that he felt her campaign to save the planet was “not good for her mental health and wellbeing”. Tubridy continued his dismissal of Thunberg by suggesting she “return to the simple things”, such as being brought home to watch a movie or go for a walk, as if to say ‘leave this stuff to the adults’, whilst ignoring the fact that ‘the adults’ are part of the reason we’re on the verge of an environmental catastrophe. He later apologised for his comments. The reticence over environmental causes begins to make sense when examining Tubridy’s relationship with cars. It appears he favours a gas-guzzler. And of course, there’s the nostrum that you cannot convince people of the truth of something if their pay packet depends on not recognising the truth. The issue of RTÉ ‘talent’ receiving sponsorship deals to drive cars is far from a new phenomenon. Tubridy himself had a brand relationship with Lexus, signing a two-year contract with the manufacturer in June 2003 “to drive an IS200 and to participate in a number of Lexus customer events and promotions”. In an interview with the Irish Independent in 2004, Tubridy remarked how much he enjoyed the heated seats on his luxury car. Nice and cushy. However, those heated seats fell short, because after Lexus rejected Tubridy’s request for a larger, more expensive model, their partnership ended and Tubridy returned to driving a BMW, as he had before the arrangement with Lexus. Unluckily for Tubridy, it was around this time that the German manufacturer announced its decision to end its ‘brand ambassadorship’ programme, requiring several RTÉ ‘stars’ to return their sponsorship cars to the company. I drive an old car, it’s an ’07, but it’s a beautiful looking car Tubridy was not a part of this programme, though BMW did confirm he had approached the company about upgrading his current car to a newer, flashier model. Several years on from this, it was reported that Tubridy had elevated his choices, swapping his BMW for a swanky Jaguar XJ. It’s a brand he appears happy to promote, having been pictured alongside former Ireland and Leinster scrumhalf Eoin Reddan in front of a brand-new Jaguar F-TYPE in 2014 as part of the inaugural Jaguar Golf Classic for the Irish Youth Foundation. Jaguar Ireland insists that Tubridy has never been part of their ambassadorial scheme, stating that “while he may personally own and drive a Jaguar, that is not, in any way, directly linked with Jaguar”, and that “any attendance at events was also on a personal level and no way part of any partnership with the brand”. From here on, the make and model of Tubridy’s car of choice is difficult to pinpoint, though he is always quick to remind us of how old his car is. A 2021 interview with The Times makes pointed reference to the fact that the car parked in his drive is 14-years-old, and during a discussion of electric cars on his radio show in 2022, he repeatedly reiterates that “I drive an old car, it’s an ’07, but it’s a beautiful looking car”. Let’s face it: it’s not truthful to describe an old Jaguar as an old car: the connotation is misleading. These reminders attempt to convey a sense that Tubridy is ‘just like everyone else’, a narrative that has been truly shattered following the revelations over the past few weeks. It also doesn’t help that in 2020, before this grandstanding about how old his car is, he can be pictured leaning out of what appears to be a modern Volvo. It’s impossible to say whether this is the car Tubridy refers to, but the car certainly doesn’t appear to be 14-years-old. With such a list of petrol-burning automobiles, it’s little wonder that Tubridy’s environmentalism is elusive. Having suggested that Thunberg went for a walk, perhaps a humbler Tubridy may accept that he needs to get out of those cars to retain the public confidence on which his career depends.

    Loading

    Read more

  • Posted in:

    Looking good for FIE challenge to EU’s inflated fishing quotas.

    by

    Radical opinion from the European Court of Justice’s Advocate-General suggests EU Commission is closing down the EU’s non-scientific, short-term, socio-economic approach to total allowable catches of cod, whiting and plaice when those overfished stocks are caught as inevitable by-catch. By Tony Lowes. The EU Commission dealt with this in a way similar to the ‘no more chocolate from Monday’ promise; because, if Monday is not understood as a fixed deadline, one will keep eating chocolate and Monday will never come The abundance of marine life described by fifteenth-century seafarers is almost unimaginable today.  As Callum Roberts records in his 2007 ‘The Unnatural History of the Sea’, they “described encounters with enormous shoals of fish that appeared almost limitless. The shoals were so dense that they could be seen from afar, darkening the surface of the water as far as the eye could see. The seas were alive with movement and colour as fish of all shapes and sizes darted through the water in a mesmerising ballet. The richness of the marine ecosystem was unparalleled, with an abundance of cod, herring, sardines, and other species that sustained both seafarers and coastal communities for generations. The seafarers spoke of a world that seemed untouched by human intervention, a paradise of natural abundance that existed in harmony with the oceans”.  In her support of the challenge brought to the European Court of Justice by Friends of the Irish Environment to overfishing in Irish waters, Advocate General Tamara Ćapeta cited the Irish spirit of the oceans, Manannán Mac Lír. “Such was the abundance of his crop in the waters surrounding Ireland that when consecutive Royal Commission examined the fishing industry in 1863 and 1885, the leading ichthyologists of the day concluded that the fisheries were ‘inexhaustible’”.  “Alas”, she continues, “they were wrong. Fish stocks are not a perpetual self-renewing resource, independent of human influence. As we have learned in this century, fish stocks require careful management in order to secure their survival”.   Friends of the Irish Environment, supported by the resources of Client Earth, challenged the quota for total allowable catches [TACs] set in 2020 for cod, whiting and plaice when those overfished stocks are caught as inevitable by-catch Friends of the Irish Environment, supported by the resources of Client Earth, challenged the quota for total allowable catches [TACs] set in 2020 for cod, whiting and plaice when those overfished stocks are caught as inevitable by-catch during fishing operations that target other stocks, undermining the principle of ‘Maximum Sustainable Yield’ [MSY]. To protect these species from being part of the inevitable by-catch the target fisheries would have to be closed to allow them to recover, with financial ruin running “from northern Scotland to the southern Azores”, according to the industry. Certainly, achieving the scientifically recommended TAC at ‘0’ for whiting in the Irish Sea would temporarily close the Dublin Bay prawn fisheries, as they inevitably catch whiting because of the way they must carry out their trawling.  As Ćapeta explains: “The concept of the Maximum Sustainable Yield (‘MSY’) is a harvest strategy globally used in fisheries. It assumes that there is a certain level of catch that can be taken from a fish stock without affecting its equilibrium population size. In essence, the idea is to harvest only the surplus of fish that naturally occurs as the stock reaches its equilibrium point and its reproduction rates slow down. Hence, by ‘shaving off’ that surplus, the reproduction rates remain maximised and the fish stock annually repletes itself without affecting its long-term survival”.  Forty years ago, the European Union brought in the Common Fisheries Policy to ensure the sustainable management of fisheries resources. Citing the subsequent EU 2009 Green Paper review of the Common Fisheries Policy Basic Regulation, the Advocate General reported that “the Commission then found ‘the [previous] CFP has not worked well enough” and warned that an “ecological and sustainable vision of the CFP is a far cry from the current reality of overfishing and decline in the volume of fish caught by European fishermen”.  According to experts, overfishing not only reduces fish biomass but threatens biodiversity, alters the marine food web, and degrades marine habitats. The experts estimate that in the EU at least 38% of fish stocks in the North East Atlantic and Baltic Sea, and 87% in the Mediterranean and the Black Sea, are being fished beyond their maximum sustainable yield.  Hence, Article 2(2) of the 2013 CFP Basic Regulation provided that fisheries management “shall aim to ensure that exploitation of living marine biological resources restores and maintains populations of harvested species above levels which can produce the maximum sustainable yield by 2015 where possible and, on a progressive, incremental basis at the latest by 2020 for all stocks”.  Critically, Ćapeta rebutted the attempts of the Commission to claim to have amended the binding targets through other measures, such as the Western Waters 2019 Regulation purportedly providing “implicit amendments”. Such amendments, even if valid (which she held were not) are “not transparent for the public”. They are “the very enemy of transparent lawmaking”, undermining the “requirement to allow for participation in the legislative process”, especially when “it concerns amendments of core elements of policy which may be of interest to the public”.  As with many environmental restrictions, there is an argument for discretion, ostensibly here to allow the “balancing of the competing ideals of sustainability and fisheries management, on the one hand, with the economic and social objectives of the communities dependent on the sea for their livelihood, on the other”.   “To my mind, however”, the Advocate General continued, “as of 2020, Article 2(2) of the CFP Basic Regulation removed from the Council those elements of discretion which relate to the decision as to whether and by when to achieve Maximum Sustainable Yield levels for the stocks covered by the Common Fisheries Policy Basic Regulation. Indeed, I consider that, by setting a fixed deadline, the EU legislature aimed to prevent the Council from putting short-term economic interests before

    Loading

    Read more