Kenny: Must intervene, says MEPPat the Cope Gallagher MEP has called on the Taoiseach, Enda Kenny, to intervene on the issue of the introduction of the HGV Road User Levy.This will see the introduction of a discriminatory tax by the British government on Irish hauliers using Northern Irish roads from the 1st of April.Mr. Gallagher specifically has urged the Taoiseach “to convene an emergency meeting of the North South Ministerial Council in order for Northern Ireland to be exempted from the HGV Road User Levy”. Pat the Cope stated “The North South Ministerial Council was established following the Good Friday Agreement, to develop cooperation within the island of Ireland on economic matters including transport. It is vitally important that the Government uses this body which was established to resolve issues such as this. Furthermore, I believe that the UK authorities must take into consideration the funding being provided by the Irish taxpayer for road developments in Northern Ireland, as part of the Good Friday Peace agreement.”Pat the Cope concluded that “an emergency meeting is required as this discriminatory and penal tax will be in place in ten days time. The proposed tax could cost hauliers travelling from Donegal to Dublin as much as €30/40 per trip. The charge of €10 per crossing is based on a 24 hour rate commencing at midnight, therefore, the cost is double if a vehicle leaves Donegal on one evening and returns after midnight on the next day. I am extremely fearful that companies right along the border may relocate to Northern Ireland with serious implications for jobs.” TAOISEACH MUST STOP BRITISH FROM CHARGING DONEGAL HGV DRIVERS – MEP was last modified: March 21st, 2014 by John2Share this:Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window) Tags:donegalHGV chargeIrish GovernmentPat The Cope GallagherUK
Tags: george best nsimbekefa kisalaKyetume FCSteven BengoUganda Premier LeagueWakiso Giants Wakiso Giants are coming off a 2-1 victory over Wakiso Giants FC in their last game. (PHOTO/File)Uganda Premier League Kyetume FC vs Wakiso Giants FC Bombo Barracks Stadium, BomboTuesday, 12-11-2019 @4pmWakiso Giants FC will be hoping for three more points when they visit Kyetume FC at Bombo Barracks Stadium on Tuesday afternoon.After a run of three successive defeated, the Purple Sharks returned to winning ways as they beat Busoga United 2-1 last weekend.It was relief for the Wakiso faithful and a first victory under caretaker coach Steven Bengo.It was also Bengo’s second game in charge after losing to Vipers SC in his maiden bow.Wakiso have under performed as per the standards they set for themselves at the start of the season and it can as no surprise that Kefa Kisala was let go of following the 3-0 loss to Express on match-day 11.There seems to be a feel good factor currently at the club after the change in management and it remains to be seen if that can be a motivation factor against Kyetume.Wakiso start the day in 9th position with 16 points and have a chance to move into 5th that is if they can win and other results go their way.Ahead of the game, Bengo is worried about how Kyetume will react after a hammering in their latest game.“It was important winning against Busoga United but that is now behind,” said Bengo.“We are playing against a very good side who will be eager to make amends after losing badly in Arua so we must be careful.Coming into Tuesday’s contest, Wakiso will be without captain Yasin Mugabi who suffered a cut on the eye in the 2-1 win over Busoga United. He joins Tom Masiko, Ayub Kisaliita and Yasin Mugume who are not match fit despite returning to training. Hakim Ssenkumba and Kirizestom Ntambi are also doubtful after picking knocks in training.For Kyetume, they will be eager to return to winning ways after a humiliation in Arua.The Slaughters were beaten 7-1 by Onduparaka, their heaviest loss since they attained promotion to the top tier.Before last Friday’s game, George Best Nsimbe’s side had proved hard to break down as they had conceded two goals in a single game on only one occasion.Against Wakiso, they need to be careful as the Purple Sharks have proved to be unpredictable this campaign.Just like Wakiso, Kyetume also have 16 points and sit 8th on the log.The two sides met in the Big League last season and this will e their fourth meeting in history.The other games on Tueday-Mbarara City FC vs Onduparaka FC @4pm-Vipers SC vs URA FC-Busoga United vs Maroons FC-Proline FC vs Bright Stars FCComments
This post is part of WRI’s blog series, The Trump Administration. The series analyzes policies and actions by the administration and their implications for climate change, energy, economics and more.With a new administration in the White House, and the secretaries of State and Treasury now confirmed by the Senate, there are big questions about the future of U.S. climate finance. On the campaign trail, President Trump said he would cancel payments to “UN climate change programs.” Meanwhile, many newspapers noted that almost all references to climate change were removed from the White House website within minutes of Trump’s inauguration last month. Pages detailing U.S. climate finance spending have also since been removed from the State Department website.These are concerning developments. The United States is a significant contributor of climate finance and has traditionally been one of the more transparent donor countries in reporting where funding has gone and what it has achieved. This detailed reporting illustrates the ways climate finance is a great deal for America and the world in terms of development, economic and security benefits.The United States spent $2.6 billion in 2015 to support developing countries in mitigating and adapting to climate change, representing just 0.07 percent of the federal budget. While most of this funding is delivered bilaterally, $422 million – 16 percent – went to multilateral funds like the Global Environment Facility (GEF), the Climate Investment Funds (CIFs) and the Green Climate Fund (GCF).U.S. Climate Finance Promotes DevelopmentBesides assisting countries in reducing greenhouse gas emissions—which helps protect the United States and the world from the dangers of climate change—climate funding is delivering vital development gains in some of the poorest and most vulnerable countries. For example:The GCF’s 35 projects approved so far are expected to increase the resilience of 103 million people to extreme weather such as droughts, flooding and hurricanes. The United States has so far delivered a third of the $3 billion it pledged to the fund in 2014. Funding from the CIFs supports the construction of more than 17 gigawatts (GW) of clean energy capacity, more than the entire generating capacity of Colombia. Projects to improve energy access are expected to benefit 37 million people, more than the population of Canada. GEF projects approved in 2015 will protect 70 million hectares (173 million acres) of land and marine areas, promoting both conservation and development on an area larger than France.U.S. Climate Finance Is Good for BusinessThe government also assesses ways in which climate funding benefits U.S. businesses, jobs and exports. For example:According to Treasury Department analysis, GEF projects have contracted U.S. companies from 23 states and Washington, D.C. The GCF is directly supporting projects implemented by U.S. corporations. One example is Acumen Fund Inc., a New York-based impact investor financed by the GCF to create a private equity fund for small- and medium-enterprises bringing off-grid solar power to 15 million people in Kenya and Rwanda. Out of the top 30 markets for U.S. renewable energy exports, more than half are eligible to receive funding from the GCF.U.S. Climate Finance Reduces Threats to National SecurityBased on the Pentagon’s assessment that climate change is a “threat multiplier,” experts at the State Department and Treasury have emphasized how climate funding helps shore up unstable areas of the world which, if left unaddressed, might present national security threats. For example:The GCF is financing projects that promote clean power, economic development and resilience in countries of key strategic interest for the United States, including Egypt, Jordan, Mali, Nigeria, Pakistan and Tunisia. The United States supports the Central America and Caribbean Catastrophe Risk Insurance Program, which provides rapid-payout insurance when natural disasters hit. This has boosted the resilience of countries in Central America and the Caribbean, addressing one of the root causes of increased migration from the region to the United States.In his Senate confirmation hearing last month, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said when asked about climate finance “In consultation with the president, my expectation is that we are going to look at these things from the bottom up in terms of funds we’ve committed toward this effort.”As the above data—primarily from the U.S. government’s own experts—show, the benefits of climate funding outweigh its relatively modest cost. It represents a great deal, not only for the poorest and most vulnerable communities around the world, but also for American exports, workers and national security.If you’re interested in finding out more about U.S. climate funding, archived copies of webpages from the Obama administration are still available, including:An overview of U.S. climate finance; A report detailing U.S. climate funding between 2010 and 2015; Developed countries’ joint statement on tracking progress towards the $100 billion climate finance goal; and Details of the U.S. commitment, made in December 2015, to double adaptation finance by 2020.
Gone are the days when people would buy a shirt and wear it for years. In a world of accelerating demand for apparel, consumers want—and can increasingly afford—new clothing after wearing garments only a few times. Entire business models are built on the premise of “fast fashion,” providing clothes cheaply and quickly to consumers through shorter fashion cycles. This linear fashion model of buying, wearing and quickly discarding clothes negatively impacts people and the planet’s resources. Here’s a look at the economic, social and environmental implications:The EconomicsAccording to the Ellen McArthur Foundation, clothing production has approximately doubled in the last 15 years, driven by a growing middle-class population across the globe and increased per capita sales in developed economies. An expected 400 percent increase in world GDP by 2050 will mean even greater demand for clothing.This could be an opportunity to do better. One report found that addressing environmental and social problems created by the fashion industry would provide a $192 billion overall benefit to the global economy by 2030. The annual value of clothing discarded prematurely is more than $400 billion. Think about how many sweaters, scarves and other clothes were given as gifts this holiday season. How many times will people wear them before throwing them out?Probably far fewer than you think. One garbage truck of clothes is burned or sent to landfills every second! The average consumer bought 60 percent more clothes in 2014 than in 2000, but kept each garment for half as long. The Environmental ImpactsApparel production is also resource- and emissions-intensive. Consider that:Making a pair of jeans produces as much greenhouse gases as driving a car more than 80 miles.Discarded clothing made of non-biodegradable fabrics can sit in landfills for up to 200 years.It takes 2,700 liters of water to make one cotton shirt, enough to meet the average person’s drinking needs for two-and-a-half years.The Societal ImpactsClothing production has helped spur growth in developing economies, but a closer look reveals a number of social challenges. For instance:According to non-profit Remake, 75 million people are making our clothes today, and 80 percent of apparel is made by young women between the ages of 18 and 24.Garment workers, primarily women, in Bangladesh make about $96 per month. The government’s wage board suggested that a garment worker needs 3.5 times that amount in order to live a “decent life with basic facilities.”A 2018 U.S. Department of Labor report found evidence of forced and child labor in the fashion industry in Argentina, Bangladesh, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Philippines, Turkey, Vietnam and other countries.Rapid consumption of apparel and the need to deliver on short fashion cycles stresses production resources, often resulting in supply chains that put profits ahead of human welfare.So, What Do We Do?So, what does a more sustainable apparel industry look like, and how do we get there? We’re starting to see some early signs of an industry in transition. Business models based on longevity, such as Rent the Runway and Gwynnie Bee, are the beginnings of an industry that supports reuse instead of rapid and irresponsible consumption. Just as Netflix reimagined traditional film rental services and Lyft disrupted transportation, we are beginning to see options for consumers to lease clothes rather than buy and stash them in their closets. Ideally, an “end of ownership” in apparel will be implemented in a way that considers impacts on jobs, communities and the environment.This is only the beginning of the radical transformation required. Apparel companies will increasingly have to confront the elephant in the boardroom and decouple their business growth from resource use. To meet tomorrow’s demand for clothing in innovative ways, companies will need to do what they have never done before: design, test and invest in business models that reuse clothes and maximize their useful life. For apparel companies, it’s time to disrupt or be disrupted.