Construction
Construction
Posted on Feb 10, 2021
Long-term environmental damage from transportation projects in Kenya, scientists warn
663
8
4
4
4
0
https://phys.org/news/2021-02-long-term-environmental-kenya-scientists.html?MessageRunDetailID= [login to see] &PostID=25448059&utm_medium=email&utm_source=rasa_io
The researchers recommend that environmental impacts are integrated into the planning of largescale infrastructure projects at every stage, and call for a particular focus on engaging and consulting key stakeholders in the design and implementation phases of the project. I personally wish they put a little more meat on the bones of the actual environmental impacts.
The researchers recommend that environmental impacts are integrated into the planning of largescale infrastructure projects at every stage, and call for a particular focus on engaging and consulting key stakeholders in the design and implementation phases of the project. I personally wish they put a little more meat on the bones of the actual environmental impacts.
Long-term environmental damage from transportation projects in Kenya, scientists warn
Posted from phys.org
Development
Construction
Environmental Specialist
Edited 8 mo ago
Posted 3 y ago
Responses: 2
2
2
0
Trains consume a lot of energy, which of course involves degrading environments, depending partly on the fuel used. I found a relevant article you may like more. In case the link doen't work, I'll quote some of it.
"In 2015, almost all countries signed the Paris Agreement, a commitment to tackle climate change. The intention was to limit global temperature increase to below 2°C, or ideally 1.5°C. To achieve this, countries submitted individual plans, called Nationally Determined Contributions, to reduce their contribution to climate change. They agreed to update them every five years.
The continent of Africa contributes 2%-3% of the global greenhouse gas emissions causing climate change. Zimbabwe contributes less than 0.1%. Despite this small contribution, all African countries submitted their plans to reduce emissions.
In 2015, Zimbabwe committed to reducing its emissions by 33% by 2030. In 2021, it updated the target to a 40% reduction by 2030 across all sectors. This significant improvement increases the fraction of emissions that Zimbabwe will reduce from all emitting sectors.
The energy sector is responsible for about 34% of Zimbabwe's total emissions. Including other sectors, like agriculture and forestry (58% of total emissions), waste (5%) and industrial processes (3%) will substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions if Zimbabwe achieves its target."
https://phys.org/news/2023-09-zimbabwe-climate-action-environment-health.html
"In 2015, almost all countries signed the Paris Agreement, a commitment to tackle climate change. The intention was to limit global temperature increase to below 2°C, or ideally 1.5°C. To achieve this, countries submitted individual plans, called Nationally Determined Contributions, to reduce their contribution to climate change. They agreed to update them every five years.
The continent of Africa contributes 2%-3% of the global greenhouse gas emissions causing climate change. Zimbabwe contributes less than 0.1%. Despite this small contribution, all African countries submitted their plans to reduce emissions.
In 2015, Zimbabwe committed to reducing its emissions by 33% by 2030. In 2021, it updated the target to a 40% reduction by 2030 across all sectors. This significant improvement increases the fraction of emissions that Zimbabwe will reduce from all emitting sectors.
The energy sector is responsible for about 34% of Zimbabwe's total emissions. Including other sectors, like agriculture and forestry (58% of total emissions), waste (5%) and industrial processes (3%) will substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions if Zimbabwe achieves its target."
https://phys.org/news/2023-09-zimbabwe-climate-action-environment-health.html
Zimbabwe's climate action plan: A win for the environment, health and energy
The dumping of billions of tons of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere yearly is already having a devastating impact around the world. This includes widespread flooding and droughts, raging wildfires, heat waves and record temperatures.
(2)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Thanks fir a very interesting article. Personally I don’t know if carbon dioxide is the cause of warming that many say it is. While this article was long, it was very short on specifics. It talked about improving the quality of life but except for sone talk about restoring soil and safe and reliable energy the article didn’t say much.
When we look at the small percentage these African nations contribute I question the global benefit from it. They also didn’t discuss the transmission and power lines that need to be constructed to each dwelling. The degradation from constructing all the electric infrastructure will be many more times what the original train would that we were reading about.
I suppose the devil is always in the details. There are no easy solutions. We must strive to look at the pros snd cons of all actions we take honestly. It is very difficult to evaluate because all the actions being discussed have potentially very serious consequences. The importance thing is to look at all honesty… and that’s not easy to do when different sides of the argument leave out details about what they advocate for.
Thanks for a good read.
When we look at the small percentage these African nations contribute I question the global benefit from it. They also didn’t discuss the transmission and power lines that need to be constructed to each dwelling. The degradation from constructing all the electric infrastructure will be many more times what the original train would that we were reading about.
I suppose the devil is always in the details. There are no easy solutions. We must strive to look at the pros snd cons of all actions we take honestly. It is very difficult to evaluate because all the actions being discussed have potentially very serious consequences. The importance thing is to look at all honesty… and that’s not easy to do when different sides of the argument leave out details about what they advocate for.
Thanks for a good read.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
It's a valuable topic. I'm not going to look further into it. I don't know much about Africa except from African American friends, Refugees I've helped to teach English, and random people in a wide variety of neighborhoods and countries.
(2)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
This article was interesting to me because in my last position before I retired, I was responsible for investigating and writing environmental documents for proposed projects. Typically, in our Country the investigation and evaluation determine any potential negative and/or positive environmental effects along with any mitigation needed for an action (construction) to move forward. The documents/evaluation are submitted to all applicable agencies depending on the resources present for their review and approval from EPA to USACOE to USFWS and all the other federal and state agencies. When they grant approval, it is not only for the construction, but all the mitigation required for the approvals. It is the best comprehensive evaluation that can be performed. Construction is monitored so if there are any unintended consequences during construction solutions are proposed and it is reviewed and agreed to in the most timely manner possible by the agency(s) that apply to the topic.
All that being said this article was interesting to me because it doesn’t specifically say if the University of York was responsible for developing the environment documents or if they were just throwing stones at the work of others. I also found the article unfair that they would say “The SGR project was given the go-ahead following the completion of two Environmental and Social Impact Assessments, but scientists question how effectively recommendations were implemented in the development, given the evidence of widespread environmental degradation that can be seen in the area.”. I find it unfair in that it doesn’t dispute specific mitigation measures, it only references “evidence of widespread environmental degradation”. If someone is going to report on a topic, they need to be more specific about what this article is writing about. That is why I call it unfair.
You are wise to defer comment because this article just doesn’t give enough information to make any judgements at all.
All that being said this article was interesting to me because it doesn’t specifically say if the University of York was responsible for developing the environment documents or if they were just throwing stones at the work of others. I also found the article unfair that they would say “The SGR project was given the go-ahead following the completion of two Environmental and Social Impact Assessments, but scientists question how effectively recommendations were implemented in the development, given the evidence of widespread environmental degradation that can be seen in the area.”. I find it unfair in that it doesn’t dispute specific mitigation measures, it only references “evidence of widespread environmental degradation”. If someone is going to report on a topic, they need to be more specific about what this article is writing about. That is why I call it unfair.
You are wise to defer comment because this article just doesn’t give enough information to make any judgements at all.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google