#SB46 All Aboard! (Blog post about 4 years of non-ambitious #climateaction 2013-2016 in #Rdg #RdgUK)

This showcase is an attempt to prove the importance of working on climate preparedness Within the local council framework, not outside it (in any partnership)!

Reading Climate Change Strategy Consultation (the fourth I believe): https://consult.reading.gov.uk/css/reading-climate-change-partnership-strategy-review

(In 2013 the Reading Climate Change Partnership (RCCP) launched its climate change strategy: ‘Reading Means Business on Climate Change’. Produced in partnership with a range of key stakeholders, the strategy outlines Reading’s response to climate change.)

As you may know Climate Change Centre Reading (CCCRdg) is still waiting for a response to our submitted response per 14/12/12 on the first consultation from 2012/13. Now is also the last chance for Reading to apply for the European Green Capital Award, online! before the next govt catastrophe.

CCCRdg has only one thing to state over the “Reading Climate Action” from the last four years. How come this community scam “Reading Climate Change Partnership” is not within the Reading Borough Council framework!? Who are these climate officials and what committee/department to contact regarding climate change also about the ratified Paris Agreement in the RBC? Where is Reading’s expertise on COP22 and Habitat3? Four years later,, it is a fraud. Should there be an investigation due to failure to take bold inclusive accessible climate action, is this failure for community engagement because of lack of competence for climate collective action, is it illegal? Is this a waste of more time and resources? (We are on the edge of the abyss and the local government can’t ignore it) This is something we feel strongly about.

Also wonder whom from the RBC Climate Change Department will be representing at the COP23? (Exactly, there is non such)

How is the climate strategy linked to SDG11? Where can one find a local net-emissions city-area overview? What is RCCP’s plan to restore our changing climate? Does Reading has an #DRR evacuation plan in place #UCEEP? Does the partnership’s strategy so-called ‘Reading Means Business on Climate Change’ include fire corridors, prevention and restoration of land loss? A panic plan when our Kennet and Thames rivers dries up? Reading’s residents have long been cheated by this non-ambitious “follow target board management”. We feel sorry for all the years that has past, now there is NO more time to waste, the CLIMATE EMERGENCY is here, it has arrived. Wake up! For heaven’s sake, there is already a Global Action Plan in place. National, regions and local governments all have own responsibility to deliver these existing health and safeguarding plans in local legislation to its residents right now A.S.A.P.

Everyday a climate emergency occurs somewhere on the planet, this only the beginning…

Where is the transparency of this committee? Whois on-board the Reading Climate Change Partnership and their roles. Where are the notes from all previous meetings, the RCCP Board Meeting Minutes, in a link?

RCCP pretend they are doing good knowing human greed –> technological growth and business development/extraction of natural resource and population growth are the main causes behind climate change, still no mention of how to act in a non-greedy manner in the climate strategy, silence, we can neither find references to healthy business regulations, compact living or family planning. You all know how political climate change is. It affects everything everywhere and everyone (in that order?). An external Reading climate strategy means nothing, unless you have a genuine, honest and long term committed leadership. Who do we trust today with the future, your local lead councillor or an independent #IoT Reading leadership? Who has the comprehensive correct knowledge to implement the right climate change policies in your own local society? Will you, a citizen of your community, tolerate a slow and weak external climate strategy being thrown in your face? Don’t accept, challenge any targets in the climate strategy for better Within your local council, until zero emission target has been achieved. If you want more info on this, search in social media, follow hashtag #SB46, google it and READ more.

If the committee’s approach to divestment was a bit caring they would act together with Fossil Free UK and target carbon financing all over Berkshire authorities and beyond, READ here; https://campaigns.gofossilfree.org/petitions/campaign-to-divest-berkshire-public-bodies-and-instutions “It’s time to launder your money! Take it out of dirty institutions that invest in filthy fossil fuels.”

Neighbouring Boroughs like Cardiff, Poole, Oxford, Milton Keynes, Bristol and Southampton City Councils; if these six south unitary authorities can achieve proper action plans, what is Reading Council’s sorrow excuse? 100% Renewable energy asap, even supermarket TESCO is on-board!

Reading Borough Council need a Climate Change Committee.

I do hope you understand the do-or-die-time momentum for glocal climate change efforts

Sincerely

#Goal11 City Levels Green, Amber or even Red

#Goal11. Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable

Today, more than half of the world’s population lives in urban areas. It is thus incumbent upon states and societies to foster policies that help make cities and human settlements more inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable, as SDG number eleven states. In this cross-national comparison we look at two aspects that can be ascribed to this complex and multidimensional goal.

11_1

Click on the picture to enlarge

The first indicator refers to air pollution and potential health stresses caused by high particulate matter concentrations. Figure 11.1 shows the respective proportion of the population whose exposure to “PM2.5” is above the WHO threshold of 15 micrograms per cubic meter. In 17 OECD member states, including several small countries such as Estonia, Iceland, Luxembourg, and Slovenia, but also some large countries such as the United Kingdom and the United States, the population is on average not exposed to particulate matter concentrations exceeding this threshold. However, in the other half of the OECD nations, the picture looks different. In the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Belgium, for instance, more than 50 percent of the population is on average exposed to particulate matter levels above the threshold. These three countries lag farthest behind. And also countries such as Germany (25 percent of the population), Switzerland (28 percent), the Netherlands (32 percent), Austria (32 percent), and Italy (35 percent) still have some catching up to do.

11_2

Click on the picture to enlarge

The second indicator used here and portrayed in figure 11.2 refers to potential overcrowding as measured by the average number of rooms in a dwelling per person. The indicator thus Today, more than half of the world’s population lives in urban areas. It is thus incumbent upon states and societies to foster policies that help make cities and human settlements more inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable, as SDG number eleven states. In this cross-national comparison we look at two aspects that can be ascribed to this complex and multidimensional goal. The first indicator refers to air pollution and potential health stresses caused by high particulate matter concentrations. Figure 11.1 shows the respective proportion of the population whose exposure to “PM2.5” is above the WHO threshold of 15 micrograms per cubic meter. In 17 OECD member states, including several small countries such as Estonia, Iceland, Luxembourg, and Slovenia, but also some large countries such Goal 11. Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable 11.1 Particulate matter provides some information on housing conditions in terms of space. The top five countries in this respect are Canada, New Zealand, the United States, Australia, and Belgium, where the respective room per person ratio is between 2.3 and 2.5. The midfi eld comprises a number of countries with on average 1.6 to 1.8 rooms per person. Countries such as Japan, Germany, France, Sweden, Austria, Portugal, and Switzerland belong to this group. At the bottom of the league table, however, we find several countries where a person has – on average – only one room at his or her disposal: Mexico (1.0), Turkey, Slovakia, Poland, and Hungary (all 1.1).

Further indicators which could be relevant to this goal include, but are not limited to, widespread access to public transport or the number of people killed in road accidents. These domains are particularly relevant outside the OECD nations since 90 percent of global road deaths, for instance, occur in low- and middle-income countries.

 

Source: SDG Index and Dashboards – Global Report

#H3PrepCom3

togetherness

Cities are, by their very nature, dynamic places that grow, evolve and develop at a fast pace, particularly in the developing world. In that sense urban development itself needs little assistance: urban areas will grow and develop out of their own momentum. The challenge is to ensure that this development is *sustainable* and *inclusive*.

As we all know, sustainability means meeting the needs of the present without undermining the opportunity for future generations to meet their own needs. Inclusiveness means meeting the needs and aspirations of all urban dwellers; the poor as well as the rich, migrants and marginalized as well as established residents. This is the challenge that needs careful thought, planning and collaborative effort.

The many comments and submissions in this discussion have proposed a range of ideas and suggestions for how to make urban development more sustainable and inclusive. Balancing these various options and approaches requires that we acknowledge the many trade-offs that development brings. As city leaders, residents and entrepreneurs struggle to respond to the dynamic growth of cities, it is easy to fall into the trap of meeting the needs of the present at the cost of the future (e.g. by making short-term choices in infrastructure development) or by neglecting the needs of the poor and marginalized while trying to meet the demands of those with stronger voices (especially elites). Sustainable and inclusive development means that we should resist these pressures as much as possible and take a more inclusive, longer-term view of urban development. This is the challenge that the New Urban Agenda will need to meet.

Our thanks for the many contributions you have made to help us create such a sustainable and inclusive agenda. We look forward to seeing what comes out of the intergovernmental process, and the negotiations that will take place in Surabaya in two weeks’ time.

The New Urban Agenda that is agreed at Habitat-III will only be the start of the journey. We look forward to continuing that journey with all of you, and the many others committed to sustainable urbanization.

With best wishes,
Joseph D’Cruz, Urbanization Task Team Lead, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)