Site
LIMIT SITE DISTURBANCE
MINIMIZE DEVELOPMENT FOOTPRINT
choose sites that are already disturbed - ie already developed and not a greenfield site.
MINIMIZE IMPERVIOUS SURFACES
UTILIZE EXISTING STORMWATER PATHS
REDUCE OR ELIMINATE LIGHT POLLUTION
INCREASE WATER USE EFFICIENCY
Building
maximize desirable solar orientation
high performance envelope such as insulated wall, roof, windows and doors
energy
energy controls on heating/cooling system
maximize daylighting
materials
provide for storage and collection of recyclables
reuse an existing building
use materials with recycled content
use durable materials and easily maintained finishes
use sustainably harvested wood
use locally at-sourced materal where possible
indoor air quality
increase ventilation effectiveness
use low voc materials
operable windows
individual control of lighting, ventilation, and/or heat
provide views to outside from most occupied spaces
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
The Climate for Change - AL GORE
The Climate for Change
By AL GORE
Published: November 9, 2008
THE inspiring and transformative choice by the American people to elect Barack Obama as our 44th president lays the foundation for another fateful choice that he — and we — must make this January to begin an emergency rescue of human civilization from the imminent and rapidly growing threat posed by the climate crisis.
The electrifying redemption of America’s revolutionary declaration that all human beings are born equal sets the stage for the renewal of United States leadership in a world that desperately needs to protect its primary endowment: the integrity and livability of the planet.
The world authority on the climate crisis, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, after 20 years of detailed study and four unanimous reports, now says that the evidence is “unequivocal.” To those who are still tempted to dismiss the increasingly urgent alarms from scientists around the world, ignore the melting of the north polar ice cap and all of the other apocalyptic warnings from the planet itself, and who roll their eyes at the very mention of this existential threat to the future of the human species, please wake up. Our children and grandchildren need you to hear and recognize the truth of our situation, before it is too late.
Here is the good news: the bold steps that are needed to solve the climate crisis are exactly the same steps that ought to be taken in order to solve the economic crisis and the energy security crisis.
Economists across the spectrum — including Martin Feldstein and Lawrence Summers — agree that large and rapid investments in a jobs-intensive infrastructure initiative is the best way to revive our economy in a quick and sustainable way. Many also agree that our economy will fall behind if we continue spending hundreds of billions of dollars on foreign oil every year. Moreover, national security experts in both parties agree that we face a dangerous strategic vulnerability if the world suddenly loses access to Middle Eastern oil.
As Abraham Lincoln said during America’s darkest hour, “The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew.” In our present case, thinking anew requires discarding an outdated and fatally flawed definition of the problem we face.
Thirty-five years ago this past week, President Richard Nixon created Project Independence, which set a national goal that, within seven years, the United States would develop “the potential to meet our own energy needs without depending on any foreign energy sources.” His statement came three weeks after the Arab oil embargo had sent prices skyrocketing and woke America to the dangers of dependence on foreign oil. And — not coincidentally — it came only three years after United States domestic oil production had peaked.
At the time, the United States imported less than a third of its oil from foreign countries. Yet today, after all six of the presidents succeeding Nixon repeated some version of his goal, our dependence has doubled from one-third to nearly two-thirds — and many feel that global oil production is at or near its peak.
Some still see this as a problem of domestic production. If we could only increase oil and coal production at home, they argue, then we wouldn’t have to rely on imports from the Middle East. Some have come up with even dirtier and more expensive new ways to extract the same old fuels, like coal liquids, oil shale, tar sands and “clean coal” technology.
But in every case, the resources in question are much too expensive or polluting, or, in the case of “clean coal,” too imaginary to make a difference in protecting either our national security or the global climate. Indeed, those who spend hundreds of millions promoting “clean coal” technology consistently omit the fact that there is little investment and not a single large-scale demonstration project in the United States for capturing and safely burying all of this pollution. If the coal industry can make good on this promise, then I’m all for it. But until that day comes, we simply cannot any longer base the strategy for human survival on a cynical and self-interested illusion.
Here’s what we can do — now: we can make an immediate and large strategic investment to put people to work replacing 19th-century energy technologies that depend on dangerous and expensive carbon-based fuels with 21st-century technologies that use fuel that is free forever: the sun, the wind and the natural heat of the earth.
What follows is a five-part plan to repower America with a commitment to producing 100 percent of our electricity from carbon-free sources within 10 years. It is a plan that would simultaneously move us toward solutions to the climate crisis and the economic crisis — and create millions of new jobs that cannot be outsourced.
First, the new president and the new Congress should offer large-scale investment in incentives for the construction of concentrated solar thermal plants in the Southwestern deserts, wind farms in the corridor stretching from Texas to the Dakotas and advanced plants in geothermal hot spots that could produce large amounts of electricity.
Second, we should begin the planning and construction of a unified national smart grid for the transport of renewable electricity from the rural places where it is mostly generated to the cities where it is mostly used. New high-voltage, low-loss underground lines can be designed with “smart” features that provide consumers with sophisticated information and easy-to-use tools for conserving electricity, eliminating inefficiency and reducing their energy bills. The cost of this modern grid — $400 billion over 10 years — pales in comparison with the annual loss to American business of $120 billion due to the cascading failures that are endemic to our current balkanized and antiquated electricity lines.
Third, we should help America’s automobile industry (not only the Big Three but the innovative new startup companies as well) to convert quickly to plug-in hybrids that can run on the renewable electricity that will be available as the rest of this plan matures. In combination with the unified grid, a nationwide fleet of plug-in hybrids would also help to solve the problem of electricity storage. Think about it: with this sort of grid, cars could be charged during off-peak energy-use hours; during peak hours, when fewer cars are on the road, they could contribute their electricity back into the national grid.
Fourth, we should embark on a nationwide effort to retrofit buildings with better insulation and energy-efficient windows and lighting. Approximately 40 percent of carbon dioxide emissions in the United States come from buildings — and stopping that pollution saves money for homeowners and businesses. This initiative should be coupled with the proposal in Congress to help Americans who are burdened by mortgages that exceed the value of their homes.
Fifth, the United States should lead the way by putting a price on carbon here at home, and by leading the world’s efforts to replace the Kyoto treaty next year in Copenhagen with a more effective treaty that caps global carbon dioxide emissions and encourages nations to invest together in efficient ways to reduce global warming pollution quickly, including by sharply reducing deforestation.
Of course, the best way — indeed the only way — to secure a global agreement to safeguard our future is by re-establishing the United States as the country with the moral and political authority to lead the world toward a solution.
Looking ahead, I have great hope that we will have the courage to embrace the changes necessary to save our economy, our planet and ultimately ourselves.
In an earlier transformative era in American history, President John F. Kennedy challenged our nation to land a man on the moon within 10 years. Eight years and two months later, Neil Armstrong set foot on the lunar surface. The average age of the systems engineers cheering on Apollo 11 from the Houston control room that day was 26, which means that their average age when President Kennedy announced the challenge was 18.
This year similarly saw the rise of young Americans, whose enthusiasm electrified Barack Obama’s campaign. There is little doubt that this same group of energized youth will play an essential role in this project to secure our national future, once again turning seemingly impossible goals into inspiring success.
By AL GORE
Published: November 9, 2008
THE inspiring and transformative choice by the American people to elect Barack Obama as our 44th president lays the foundation for another fateful choice that he — and we — must make this January to begin an emergency rescue of human civilization from the imminent and rapidly growing threat posed by the climate crisis.
The electrifying redemption of America’s revolutionary declaration that all human beings are born equal sets the stage for the renewal of United States leadership in a world that desperately needs to protect its primary endowment: the integrity and livability of the planet.
The world authority on the climate crisis, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, after 20 years of detailed study and four unanimous reports, now says that the evidence is “unequivocal.” To those who are still tempted to dismiss the increasingly urgent alarms from scientists around the world, ignore the melting of the north polar ice cap and all of the other apocalyptic warnings from the planet itself, and who roll their eyes at the very mention of this existential threat to the future of the human species, please wake up. Our children and grandchildren need you to hear and recognize the truth of our situation, before it is too late.
Here is the good news: the bold steps that are needed to solve the climate crisis are exactly the same steps that ought to be taken in order to solve the economic crisis and the energy security crisis.
Economists across the spectrum — including Martin Feldstein and Lawrence Summers — agree that large and rapid investments in a jobs-intensive infrastructure initiative is the best way to revive our economy in a quick and sustainable way. Many also agree that our economy will fall behind if we continue spending hundreds of billions of dollars on foreign oil every year. Moreover, national security experts in both parties agree that we face a dangerous strategic vulnerability if the world suddenly loses access to Middle Eastern oil.
As Abraham Lincoln said during America’s darkest hour, “The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew.” In our present case, thinking anew requires discarding an outdated and fatally flawed definition of the problem we face.
Thirty-five years ago this past week, President Richard Nixon created Project Independence, which set a national goal that, within seven years, the United States would develop “the potential to meet our own energy needs without depending on any foreign energy sources.” His statement came three weeks after the Arab oil embargo had sent prices skyrocketing and woke America to the dangers of dependence on foreign oil. And — not coincidentally — it came only three years after United States domestic oil production had peaked.
At the time, the United States imported less than a third of its oil from foreign countries. Yet today, after all six of the presidents succeeding Nixon repeated some version of his goal, our dependence has doubled from one-third to nearly two-thirds — and many feel that global oil production is at or near its peak.
Some still see this as a problem of domestic production. If we could only increase oil and coal production at home, they argue, then we wouldn’t have to rely on imports from the Middle East. Some have come up with even dirtier and more expensive new ways to extract the same old fuels, like coal liquids, oil shale, tar sands and “clean coal” technology.
But in every case, the resources in question are much too expensive or polluting, or, in the case of “clean coal,” too imaginary to make a difference in protecting either our national security or the global climate. Indeed, those who spend hundreds of millions promoting “clean coal” technology consistently omit the fact that there is little investment and not a single large-scale demonstration project in the United States for capturing and safely burying all of this pollution. If the coal industry can make good on this promise, then I’m all for it. But until that day comes, we simply cannot any longer base the strategy for human survival on a cynical and self-interested illusion.
Here’s what we can do — now: we can make an immediate and large strategic investment to put people to work replacing 19th-century energy technologies that depend on dangerous and expensive carbon-based fuels with 21st-century technologies that use fuel that is free forever: the sun, the wind and the natural heat of the earth.
What follows is a five-part plan to repower America with a commitment to producing 100 percent of our electricity from carbon-free sources within 10 years. It is a plan that would simultaneously move us toward solutions to the climate crisis and the economic crisis — and create millions of new jobs that cannot be outsourced.
First, the new president and the new Congress should offer large-scale investment in incentives for the construction of concentrated solar thermal plants in the Southwestern deserts, wind farms in the corridor stretching from Texas to the Dakotas and advanced plants in geothermal hot spots that could produce large amounts of electricity.
Second, we should begin the planning and construction of a unified national smart grid for the transport of renewable electricity from the rural places where it is mostly generated to the cities where it is mostly used. New high-voltage, low-loss underground lines can be designed with “smart” features that provide consumers with sophisticated information and easy-to-use tools for conserving electricity, eliminating inefficiency and reducing their energy bills. The cost of this modern grid — $400 billion over 10 years — pales in comparison with the annual loss to American business of $120 billion due to the cascading failures that are endemic to our current balkanized and antiquated electricity lines.
Third, we should help America’s automobile industry (not only the Big Three but the innovative new startup companies as well) to convert quickly to plug-in hybrids that can run on the renewable electricity that will be available as the rest of this plan matures. In combination with the unified grid, a nationwide fleet of plug-in hybrids would also help to solve the problem of electricity storage. Think about it: with this sort of grid, cars could be charged during off-peak energy-use hours; during peak hours, when fewer cars are on the road, they could contribute their electricity back into the national grid.
Fourth, we should embark on a nationwide effort to retrofit buildings with better insulation and energy-efficient windows and lighting. Approximately 40 percent of carbon dioxide emissions in the United States come from buildings — and stopping that pollution saves money for homeowners and businesses. This initiative should be coupled with the proposal in Congress to help Americans who are burdened by mortgages that exceed the value of their homes.
Fifth, the United States should lead the way by putting a price on carbon here at home, and by leading the world’s efforts to replace the Kyoto treaty next year in Copenhagen with a more effective treaty that caps global carbon dioxide emissions and encourages nations to invest together in efficient ways to reduce global warming pollution quickly, including by sharply reducing deforestation.
Of course, the best way — indeed the only way — to secure a global agreement to safeguard our future is by re-establishing the United States as the country with the moral and political authority to lead the world toward a solution.
Looking ahead, I have great hope that we will have the courage to embrace the changes necessary to save our economy, our planet and ultimately ourselves.
In an earlier transformative era in American history, President John F. Kennedy challenged our nation to land a man on the moon within 10 years. Eight years and two months later, Neil Armstrong set foot on the lunar surface. The average age of the systems engineers cheering on Apollo 11 from the Houston control room that day was 26, which means that their average age when President Kennedy announced the challenge was 18.
This year similarly saw the rise of young Americans, whose enthusiasm electrified Barack Obama’s campaign. There is little doubt that this same group of energized youth will play an essential role in this project to secure our national future, once again turning seemingly impossible goals into inspiring success.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Press Release 10 Sept 2008
I have received several queries in regard to my decision to run in the functional constituency (Architectural, Surveying and Planning) seat and asked to comment in particular, now that the dust has settled, on the low number of electoral votes my campaign garnered, which unfortunately resulted in loss of my deposit.
From the outset I had no real intention of running a winning campaign. My only aim was to focus the debate solely on spreading the message of building sustainability and conservation. Electors received from me just one letter, printed on recycled paper, and I produced no posters or any other electoral press kit – everything else was done electronically.
I did minimal vote canvassing preferring to present at company / institutional forums and talk to the media primarily to try and get the message of sustainability and conservation over to the attendees, viewers and listeners.
Naturally I congratulate the winning candidate, the incumbent Professor Patrick Lau, and I am pleased that Legislator Lau has corresponded with me and affirmed his commitment to the cause of sustainable buildings and building conservation hence it is my hope my objective has been partly achieved.
The investment I have made in terms of money and time I consider well worth spent if it results, for all citizens, cleaner air, sustainable living environment, and keeping what little is left with our heritage buildings - never again should we accept another piece of wanton destruction of our heritage like the Star Ferry and Queen Pier.
At the end of the this new legislatures current term in 2012 I hope we can look back and see our representatives have made decisive steps to clean our air, make our buildings sustainable and keep our heritage intact.
I am hopeful that message has been delivered.
From the outset I had no real intention of running a winning campaign. My only aim was to focus the debate solely on spreading the message of building sustainability and conservation. Electors received from me just one letter, printed on recycled paper, and I produced no posters or any other electoral press kit – everything else was done electronically.
I did minimal vote canvassing preferring to present at company / institutional forums and talk to the media primarily to try and get the message of sustainability and conservation over to the attendees, viewers and listeners.
Naturally I congratulate the winning candidate, the incumbent Professor Patrick Lau, and I am pleased that Legislator Lau has corresponded with me and affirmed his commitment to the cause of sustainable buildings and building conservation hence it is my hope my objective has been partly achieved.
The investment I have made in terms of money and time I consider well worth spent if it results, for all citizens, cleaner air, sustainable living environment, and keeping what little is left with our heritage buildings - never again should we accept another piece of wanton destruction of our heritage like the Star Ferry and Queen Pier.
At the end of the this new legislatures current term in 2012 I hope we can look back and see our representatives have made decisive steps to clean our air, make our buildings sustainable and keep our heritage intact.
I am hopeful that message has been delivered.
Professor Lau, our new AS&P LegCo support sustainabilty and conservation
Below is an email from Professor Lau:
Dear David,
We missed you at the vote counting activity.
Please be assured that sustainability & conservation will be high on my agenda.
Don't hesistate to call on me when you have time to do community work in these areas.
Warm regards, Patrick
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 10:04 AM, David Chan <david.chan@hk.knightfrank.com> wrote:
Dear Patrick,
Congratulation on your win over the AS&P functional constituency. It was a decisive victory and I think overall is good for Hong Kong.
As discussed before, I did not run a campaign to win but to simply spread the message of the importance of the effect of global warming, sustainability and conservation which I hoped that does include you.
I am hence hopeful that sustainability and conservation will remain high up on your political agenda so that we can build a better HK for us all and the next generation.
All the best at LegCo.
David
Dear David,
We missed you at the vote counting activity.
Please be assured that sustainability & conservation will be high on my agenda.
Don't hesistate to call on me when you have time to do community work in these areas.
Warm regards, Patrick
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 10:04 AM, David Chan <david.chan@hk.knightfrank.com> wrote:
Dear Patrick,
Congratulation on your win over the AS&P functional constituency. It was a decisive victory and I think overall is good for Hong Kong.
As discussed before, I did not run a campaign to win but to simply spread the message of the importance of the effect of global warming, sustainability and conservation which I hoped that does include you.
I am hence hopeful that sustainability and conservation will remain high up on your political agenda so that we can build a better HK for us all and the next generation.
All the best at LegCo.
David
Today the LegCo result finally came out.
I didn't run a campaign to win so not winning was expected.
I was a little surprise that the imminent effects and consequences of global warming had just so little impact to the AS&P electors. but then I guess I did not do a convincing enough show.
Like the article from SCMP, it took something like Katrina to make Americans start to listen to what it could be like it something is not done.
But what ever it is, I have no wish for something like a Katrina for Hong Kong.
I am hopeful that I am wrong, that the problem really is less serious than scientists are predicting.
I guess at least Dr Lau, the newly re-elected LegCo member did pledge that he will take both sustainability and conservation seriously and will do something about it at LegCo.
It is interesting that we had uses quite a few hundreds of thousands of trees in this LegCo, at least I can say I made the least damage. I also hoped that future elections will be more environmentally friendly, I just don't see in this day and age of technology advances that we need to do this the same way as the last century.
Thank you for those that decided to vote for me, or those that who may not have but considered the message of sustainability and conservation is important and should be much higher up in the political agenda. In the end politics is not going to bring back the star ferry pier and has little impact on global warming, but it does affect our future.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
AS&P LegCo forum or a war of words between IA and IS....
I normally only report on global warming issue.
But I think this is worth sharing as it was basically open war of words between HKIS presidents, senior members of the HKS and HKIA council.
On Thursday 4 sept 2008 7pm till late was the "main" institute arrange election forum, HKIS decided not to have one.
The meeting, organize by the HKIA with members of HKIS, HKIP, HKILA invisted
A joint forum was not a bad idea if the aim is find a new Legislative Councilor representing the Architectural, Surveying and Planning Functional Constituency. A new strong, honest, professional, a person with integrity who was supposedly going to unite the 6100 or so professional members on a common goal and mission to develop a better Hong Kong. it was a closed forum, outsiders were hence not invited. No press was present.
It was one of the last opportunity for the 4 new candidates and the incumbent to talk about how they are the best person to do this job for the next 4 years
This "main event" (which felt more like the Hong Kong version of American idol) was not well attended, only about 40 but I guess still at least allowed the 5 LegCo candidates to speak to members of the all 4 institutes. Of the 6100 members about 40 weret here, primarily "council members, various appointed election agents and helpers (probably take up about a dozen).
There were some argument about seating with the HKIS president decided not to sit upfront for the forum. Kind of strange when the forum sole purpose was for all the candidate to speak.
After another 5-10min of arguing, with senior members of the HKIA shouting across the room about the IS candidate not respect architects, counter statement about improper actions of some members etc. Finally it was decided that the Surveyor candidate would sit in as a bystander.
So after 45 mins, the event finally started, and we all did our standard speech, I did my usual single agenda about the accelerated effect of global warming, that the sea could start flooding in by 2013. Had all this data with me expecting people might ask about this, where the water is coming from, what can we do, if it does come what would HK be like,what kind of flood defense we might need etc.
Not one single question has been asked on these, I also thought there may be some questions about the introduction of a sustainability code. What we can do to upgrade our very outdated building regulations to new energy and insulation requirements. Perhaps some might be interested in how old buildings could be upgrade to better energy efficiency how much we could save electricity cost. Even upgrade of the fire safety requirements to avoid future problem like the recent fire?
How about conservation, someone must be interest in how best we should conserve what little left of our heritage, after all thousands of people did protest about the demolition of the Star ferry pier, Queens pier. people protest, camped and slept overnight, hunger strike etc etc, perhaps these must be interested on that. In the end there was a planner who did question about why did the incumbent decided to take the absent vote. there were some discussion about what each would do and right and wrong of it all (and all that time I was thinking look guys, we lost these pier for good, even if one was rebuilt after all this reclaim, it will just be a monument not quite the working pier that use to serve royals, high ranking civil servant, investments bankers and corporate get together boat rides.
I thought shouldn't we be talking more as to how were can best stop things like this from ever happening again. but the conversation degenerated into rule and regulations of how antiquity board work and there are so much great things already the LegCo had done etc etc..
There were bit and pieces about people political view, whether the candidates are democrats, whether they are pro development. there were some talk about sustainability (a few minutes quite a bit about how bad the government system of engaging consultants.
about how fees are 20% of normal under a competitive tender.
There were ideas about how great overseas countries are in engaging consultants based upon good architectural design. As everyone who have worked overseas knows, this is not really strictly true as the same kind of complaints or new types of equally valid complaints are also said overseas, like bidding a one dollar fee?
Anyway, no point in elaborate on that, other than the grass is always greener on the other side and many of the great ideas about how open competitions are in the wast are limited to grand scheme projects and most other mundane government projects are procure the same way, proposals plus fee. There was the show of 2 year old Al Gore inconvenient truth again (which until recently I have only find out that most of the professional had not seen).
There was a bit more talk about planning, how would transfer of development right would solve the problem of Hong Kong. There were more discussion about democrat, should the LegCo vote for the AS&P member or the view of the party.
Toward the end, the HKIS candidate did decided to say some words about integrity and how he would unite the four institute, some of the audience opening criticize how could this be true if you can't even respect this forum and sit in front on stage and answer the questions?
More back of forth of angry words, other statements which I was too hungry and tired to remember and that was about it, after 2 hours and30 mins, the show of the next Hong Kong Idol was finally over.
I can go home, hopefully see my children before they go to bed. It is interesting that I notice most of the younger members who came to listen has gone, drifted away quietly probably a long time ago, and what was left was council members, some familiar faces that seem to like going to these and ask the "tough questions". There were few tough question at least for me anyway, other than some strange looks, probably thinking what is this guy doing here talking about global warming and conserving what is left of our heritage in Hong Kong.....
"what is in it for him, why is he here?"
I guess these were my thoughts
Can I be wasting my time?
But then, it was getting late, and I was really tired, and was looking forward in seeing my family....
But I think this is worth sharing as it was basically open war of words between HKIS presidents, senior members of the HKS and HKIA council.
On Thursday 4 sept 2008 7pm till late was the "main" institute arrange election forum, HKIS decided not to have one.
The meeting, organize by the HKIA with members of HKIS, HKIP, HKILA invisted
A joint forum was not a bad idea if the aim is find a new Legislative Councilor representing the Architectural, Surveying and Planning Functional Constituency. A new strong, honest, professional, a person with integrity who was supposedly going to unite the 6100 or so professional members on a common goal and mission to develop a better Hong Kong. it was a closed forum, outsiders were hence not invited. No press was present.
It was one of the last opportunity for the 4 new candidates and the incumbent to talk about how they are the best person to do this job for the next 4 years
This "main event" (which felt more like the Hong Kong version of American idol) was not well attended, only about 40 but I guess still at least allowed the 5 LegCo candidates to speak to members of the all 4 institutes. Of the 6100 members about 40 weret here, primarily "council members, various appointed election agents and helpers (probably take up about a dozen).
There were some argument about seating with the HKIS president decided not to sit upfront for the forum. Kind of strange when the forum sole purpose was for all the candidate to speak.
After another 5-10min of arguing, with senior members of the HKIA shouting across the room about the IS candidate not respect architects, counter statement about improper actions of some members etc. Finally it was decided that the Surveyor candidate would sit in as a bystander.
So after 45 mins, the event finally started, and we all did our standard speech, I did my usual single agenda about the accelerated effect of global warming, that the sea could start flooding in by 2013. Had all this data with me expecting people might ask about this, where the water is coming from, what can we do, if it does come what would HK be like,what kind of flood defense we might need etc.
Not one single question has been asked on these, I also thought there may be some questions about the introduction of a sustainability code. What we can do to upgrade our very outdated building regulations to new energy and insulation requirements. Perhaps some might be interested in how old buildings could be upgrade to better energy efficiency how much we could save electricity cost. Even upgrade of the fire safety requirements to avoid future problem like the recent fire?
How about conservation, someone must be interest in how best we should conserve what little left of our heritage, after all thousands of people did protest about the demolition of the Star ferry pier, Queens pier. people protest, camped and slept overnight, hunger strike etc etc, perhaps these must be interested on that. In the end there was a planner who did question about why did the incumbent decided to take the absent vote. there were some discussion about what each would do and right and wrong of it all (and all that time I was thinking look guys, we lost these pier for good, even if one was rebuilt after all this reclaim, it will just be a monument not quite the working pier that use to serve royals, high ranking civil servant, investments bankers and corporate get together boat rides.
I thought shouldn't we be talking more as to how were can best stop things like this from ever happening again. but the conversation degenerated into rule and regulations of how antiquity board work and there are so much great things already the LegCo had done etc etc..
There were bit and pieces about people political view, whether the candidates are democrats, whether they are pro development. there were some talk about sustainability (a few minutes quite a bit about how bad the government system of engaging consultants.
about how fees are 20% of normal under a competitive tender.
There were ideas about how great overseas countries are in engaging consultants based upon good architectural design. As everyone who have worked overseas knows, this is not really strictly true as the same kind of complaints or new types of equally valid complaints are also said overseas, like bidding a one dollar fee?
Anyway, no point in elaborate on that, other than the grass is always greener on the other side and many of the great ideas about how open competitions are in the wast are limited to grand scheme projects and most other mundane government projects are procure the same way, proposals plus fee. There was the show of 2 year old Al Gore inconvenient truth again (which until recently I have only find out that most of the professional had not seen).
There was a bit more talk about planning, how would transfer of development right would solve the problem of Hong Kong. There were more discussion about democrat, should the LegCo vote for the AS&P member or the view of the party.
Toward the end, the HKIS candidate did decided to say some words about integrity and how he would unite the four institute, some of the audience opening criticize how could this be true if you can't even respect this forum and sit in front on stage and answer the questions?
More back of forth of angry words, other statements which I was too hungry and tired to remember and that was about it, after 2 hours and30 mins, the show of the next Hong Kong Idol was finally over.
I can go home, hopefully see my children before they go to bed. It is interesting that I notice most of the younger members who came to listen has gone, drifted away quietly probably a long time ago, and what was left was council members, some familiar faces that seem to like going to these and ask the "tough questions". There were few tough question at least for me anyway, other than some strange looks, probably thinking what is this guy doing here talking about global warming and conserving what is left of our heritage in Hong Kong.....
"what is in it for him, why is he here?"
I guess these were my thoughts
Can I be wasting my time?
But then, it was getting late, and I was really tired, and was looking forward in seeing my family....
Friday, September 5, 2008
In 2013, what could 7meter rise in sea level do to Hong Kong ?
Incoming tide
waterline will surpass legco
Increasing rainfall
And on the other side of the earth.........
Global warming, if the scientists are correct the two polar ice caps and glaciers melts.
So far most computer modelling conducted are wrong - this is happening faster than we all think.
We can wait for legCo to decide, we can wait for 2017 or 2020, we can wait for the new CE.
Global warming does not wait, it will come and politics are not going to stop that happening, when we start building huge flood walls all the way along our coastlines, when government starts to build massive dam liked barriers. Perhaps we can still wait.
Make Sustainability, Conservation and the environment central to government policies, make it a primary objective to reduce carbon emissions, do it now and make a better world for us and the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
