I have found it interesting to see how similar the world is getting. We are all quickly moving towards the middle in all facets of life. Environmental is no different. As the developing nations develop they want to be respected in all areas including environmental. It does not hurt that the World Bank requires that any project they loan money for must comply with their environmental guidelines; similar to EU or USA standards.
What I try to convey to people is that most all countries on the planet have environmental regulations, but what separates them is enforcement. Some countries strictly enforce, while others selectively enforce. It is the selective enforcement that gets most companies. It is common for US companies to be highly regulated by a country, while local businesses go unchallenged. The US company managers ignore the regulations and end up paying in the end to keep it quiet.
Be aware that these country laws can give the regulating agency a lot of latitude to pierce the corporate veil and can issue criminal as well as civil violations.
Site cleanup is not difficult in these countries as the local regulator typically does not use the comical EPA standard of clean. As long as you can show that you have returned the site to at least the condition you found it in then you should be good to go. It is always best to do your homework in advance, ignore whatever the commercial people say. A baseline assessment will go a long way to allowing you to sleep well at night.
11/15/2011
6/12/2011
Japan
Following the horrific events that occurred earlier this year (2011) in Japan there has been a wave of support from across the globe. Currently I can be counted as one of those contributing in a small way towards this effort.
Emergency situations, such as those in Japan or even following the tornados in the Southern USA, cause great distruction to the infastructure as well as to people. Most companies are under the false impression that because there is an emergency situation EHS rules/laws are suspended. What they do not understand is that safety and health can never be suspended, no matter the situation. A emergency is no reason to believe that managing impacts to the environment somehow is of no concern. Dumping methyl ethyl death will never be tolerated no matter the situation.
Environmental rules and regulations are in place to protect human safety and health, as well as the bugs and bunnies. The management of hazardous materials and wastes are never relaxed due to some outside situation. In fact, because of the emergency situation following these rules are even more important to avoid making the situation even worse.
Emergency situations, such as those in Japan or even following the tornados in the Southern USA, cause great distruction to the infastructure as well as to people. Most companies are under the false impression that because there is an emergency situation EHS rules/laws are suspended. What they do not understand is that safety and health can never be suspended, no matter the situation. A emergency is no reason to believe that managing impacts to the environment somehow is of no concern. Dumping methyl ethyl death will never be tolerated no matter the situation.
Environmental rules and regulations are in place to protect human safety and health, as well as the bugs and bunnies. The management of hazardous materials and wastes are never relaxed due to some outside situation. In fact, because of the emergency situation following these rules are even more important to avoid making the situation even worse.
5/23/2011
Take for granted
It is unfortunate that many people think that because they set up shop in a under developed country that they do not have to comply with environmental regulations. The assumption is that these backwater countries don't care or are ignorant. The truth is farther from this notion. The fact is these places care but do not have the means of enforcing regulations.
Businesses, west or east (China is no exception) take advantage of these situations. Short term profits are the motivation, never is it for the betterment of that country.
This is why a compassionate capitalist company should look at long term profit potential. Doing the right things does not need to kill the profit margin if executed correctly with advanced forethought and planning.
That seems to be the biggest stumbling block for most companies is the inability to plan for environmental aspects of their operations. It is frequently a afterthought and as such receives little attention. The EHS manager spends their time on the HS and little on the E. It is a rarity that you will find a proper environmental or health and safety program, it is normally HS.
The company management then spends little, and listens less especially when they believe there is no regulatory requirement. To them this is license to do as they please and drive the bottom line. Never mind about opportunities tomorrow.
Businesses, west or east (China is no exception) take advantage of these situations. Short term profits are the motivation, never is it for the betterment of that country.
This is why a compassionate capitalist company should look at long term profit potential. Doing the right things does not need to kill the profit margin if executed correctly with advanced forethought and planning.
That seems to be the biggest stumbling block for most companies is the inability to plan for environmental aspects of their operations. It is frequently a afterthought and as such receives little attention. The EHS manager spends their time on the HS and little on the E. It is a rarity that you will find a proper environmental or health and safety program, it is normally HS.
The company management then spends little, and listens less especially when they believe there is no regulatory requirement. To them this is license to do as they please and drive the bottom line. Never mind about opportunities tomorrow.
9/08/2010
Contract Away Liability
I ran across an interesting item when I first came out to Africa. While reading the contract between the US Department of Defense and my company on the handling of waste I found the standard language of all waste is the responsibility of the contractor to dispose of properly.
This is not an issue, as this is standard language. The problem arose when I found out there is no legal means of achieving the requirement of properly. At our location the local community does not have proper landfill or way of disposing of waste. So any waste leaving the client's property would end up at a landfill (placement unit) that the international community recognizes as a hazard to the local community and environment.
When the client was made aware of this issue they pointed to the contract and indicated that it was not their problem.
The truth of the matter that in the states or outside of the states the US DOD can not contract away its liability for safety or environmental responsibilities, including waste. Any waste that is improperly disposed of by a contractor remains the property of the owner, in this case the US DOD. They can not hide behind the contract if the host country decides to prosecute. Now what is the likely hood of a penalty arising from such as situation? Not very high. But then again, there is the issue of doing the right thing.
8/23/2010
Sustainable Construction_Djibouti
The Republic of Djibouti.
The country as a whole is stable politically (due to government subsidy of a narcotic-Khat), although economically it is near the top of the lowest standards of living. They have no major resources, and other than 2 large military bases and a deep water port there is no major industry. The government on paper is a democracy, but is run more along the lines of the famous Italian families that operated 'business' out of New York and Chicago; I am trying to be nice here.
The electric is provided by old diesel generators which are undersized and breaking down, in fact one of the 5 remaining units was taken off line recently. Electric costs are near the most expensive in the world; $.88/KwH.
The climate in the summer is horrid, where temperatures can get up to the 120 degree with heat index above 140.
A place where sustainable construction should be the norm is non-existent. Buildings are constructed out of concrete blocks (cinder), with no insulation. Windows are cheap and installed with gaps in the frames, no solar reflective quality. No weather striping around doors, nothing. The most non-energy efficient structures you could possibly imagine being built in the most high cost energy country with a super low per capital income.
I have learned, when I asked why insulation is not being used and the reliance on concrete bricks, that this construction method/materials and lack of insulation is a designed plan by the government. The idea is for the populace to use more energy, to maximize income from electric sales! I am sure few would believe it, but up until this year solar power was not allowed to be installed (jail time) in the country.
The lesson is to know about the country you are planning on building in and do not assume that if it is of benefit (alternative energy), that it is legal.
Believe it Or Not
The country as a whole is stable politically (due to government subsidy of a narcotic-Khat), although economically it is near the top of the lowest standards of living. They have no major resources, and other than 2 large military bases and a deep water port there is no major industry. The government on paper is a democracy, but is run more along the lines of the famous Italian families that operated 'business' out of New York and Chicago; I am trying to be nice here.
The electric is provided by old diesel generators which are undersized and breaking down, in fact one of the 5 remaining units was taken off line recently. Electric costs are near the most expensive in the world; $.88/KwH.
The climate in the summer is horrid, where temperatures can get up to the 120 degree with heat index above 140.
A place where sustainable construction should be the norm is non-existent. Buildings are constructed out of concrete blocks (cinder), with no insulation. Windows are cheap and installed with gaps in the frames, no solar reflective quality. No weather striping around doors, nothing. The most non-energy efficient structures you could possibly imagine being built in the most high cost energy country with a super low per capital income.
I have learned, when I asked why insulation is not being used and the reliance on concrete bricks, that this construction method/materials and lack of insulation is a designed plan by the government. The idea is for the populace to use more energy, to maximize income from electric sales! I am sure few would believe it, but up until this year solar power was not allowed to be installed (jail time) in the country.
The lesson is to know about the country you are planning on building in and do not assume that if it is of benefit (alternative energy), that it is legal.
Believe it Or Not
8/17/2010
Ground Water 1.1
Water is a issue of high importance on the international front. It is both a welcome and life sustaining element, and at the same time one that can kill or weaken a whole people. Access to clean water is a basic human right, which we all tend to overlook in the west as we have it available in plentiful supply with ease of access.
Countries have regulations in place that cover contamination of both ground and surface water, but it depends on the location as to how much or little enforcement of these regulations is applied. It should not be a matter of having a government enforce a regulation in order for an entity to do whatever it can to be protective of local drinking water sources.
From the point of view of someone considering the establishment of some enterprise in a country there needs to be an understanding of the available resources. Water is one of those key resources. From a political point there also needs to be an understanding of the availability of water to the enterprise as well as to the local populace. The reason being if the government gives the enterprise unrestricted access to the water, while at the same time limits or fails to provide the same water to local populace this may create a future issue; also it is not the right thing to do.
Before engaging in an agreement concerning water rights for the enterprise it is best to conduct an evaluation of this resource that covers quantity, quality, availability, and local politics. The same as a environmental assessment to provide the user with the information necessary to make the right decision.
Never sign an agreement without consulting with your environmental experts, as well as legal staff. Use this team to obtain guidance.
Countries have regulations in place that cover contamination of both ground and surface water, but it depends on the location as to how much or little enforcement of these regulations is applied. It should not be a matter of having a government enforce a regulation in order for an entity to do whatever it can to be protective of local drinking water sources.
From the point of view of someone considering the establishment of some enterprise in a country there needs to be an understanding of the available resources. Water is one of those key resources. From a political point there also needs to be an understanding of the availability of water to the enterprise as well as to the local populace. The reason being if the government gives the enterprise unrestricted access to the water, while at the same time limits or fails to provide the same water to local populace this may create a future issue; also it is not the right thing to do.
Before engaging in an agreement concerning water rights for the enterprise it is best to conduct an evaluation of this resource that covers quantity, quality, availability, and local politics. The same as a environmental assessment to provide the user with the information necessary to make the right decision.
Never sign an agreement without consulting with your environmental experts, as well as legal staff. Use this team to obtain guidance.
8/11/2010
Alternative Energy_International
The conducting of an environmental assessment study is not a USA driven monopoly. These studies are required by all world agencies for any project that can have an impact. I was reading about how hydroelectric dams are impacting people whose lands are inundated by the resulting lakes that are created. News stories such as these never direct the readers to the EA that was conducted as part of that project. The EA will outline the impacts, the alternatives, etc. So that the suggestion that these news stories make that people are arbitrarily being displaced without consideration is never accurate.
_________________________________________________________________________
This is my editorial about Alternative Energy that has nothing to do with Environmental Compliance:
When the Tennessee Valley Authority built hydroelectric dams there were many Americans farmers who were driven off their lands; also destroying hunting and fishing grounds. Now those areas thrive with new business development, irrigation farming, and people who were just getting by now have other opportunities. Not to mention all the people outside of the area whose standard of living was improved.
We as "Green" conscious professionals need to pick a side. Either we want alternative energy or we don't. It is a fact that any major change will impact somebody. Is this right? The answer is not easy. We continue to scream, beat our fists on the desk, roll our eyes, point fingers, and blame the oil companies and government for in action, and the current state of energy affairs. Then when an alternative energy project is built we scream, beat our fists on the desk, roll our eyes, point fingers, and blame government for this action. Because this project impacts the beauty of the landscape, changes the natural wind patterns, displaces people from their homes, confuses a bird’s flight route, turtle populations increase, changes the this or that. Guess what, any alternative energy source you pick will have some consequence and impact; ANY.
Most all alternative energy sources do not have the energy equivalence of oil, so that they are not as efficient. Which means that their use will have a greater impact. Look at the solar or wind farms. For example the proposed solar farm near Primm Nevada will require 3,500 acres of desert. But it will provide clean energy to millions of people. Also, these particular energy sources do not in themselves contribute anything else back to the user. Hydroelectric provides users with multiple uses beyond supplying a clean energy source, such as irrigation, recreational, creating a reserve of water in case of a drought, etc.
This is the hard choice to be made, either: provide alternative energy, maintain the status quo (oil), or let people remain in the dark ages. Pick a side and then live with the consequences.
_________________________________________________________________________
This is my editorial about Alternative Energy that has nothing to do with Environmental Compliance:
When the Tennessee Valley Authority built hydroelectric dams there were many Americans farmers who were driven off their lands; also destroying hunting and fishing grounds. Now those areas thrive with new business development, irrigation farming, and people who were just getting by now have other opportunities. Not to mention all the people outside of the area whose standard of living was improved.
We as "Green" conscious professionals need to pick a side. Either we want alternative energy or we don't. It is a fact that any major change will impact somebody. Is this right? The answer is not easy. We continue to scream, beat our fists on the desk, roll our eyes, point fingers, and blame the oil companies and government for in action, and the current state of energy affairs. Then when an alternative energy project is built we scream, beat our fists on the desk, roll our eyes, point fingers, and blame government for this action. Because this project impacts the beauty of the landscape, changes the natural wind patterns, displaces people from their homes, confuses a bird’s flight route, turtle populations increase, changes the this or that. Guess what, any alternative energy source you pick will have some consequence and impact; ANY.
Most all alternative energy sources do not have the energy equivalence of oil, so that they are not as efficient. Which means that their use will have a greater impact. Look at the solar or wind farms. For example the proposed solar farm near Primm Nevada will require 3,500 acres of desert. But it will provide clean energy to millions of people. Also, these particular energy sources do not in themselves contribute anything else back to the user. Hydroelectric provides users with multiple uses beyond supplying a clean energy source, such as irrigation, recreational, creating a reserve of water in case of a drought, etc.
This is the hard choice to be made, either: provide alternative energy, maintain the status quo (oil), or let people remain in the dark ages. Pick a side and then live with the consequences.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)