BLOOMS & BUREAUCRACY
The Lough Neagh Action Plan
BOXERS IN THE BREEZE Cloud-Seeding Technology and Politics of Weather Control
EU Nature Restoration Law An Ambitious Roadmap to an Ecologically Secure EU
NOVEMBER 2024 • VOLUM E
Evergreen Trinity
Editor’s Note
Welcome, dear Readers, to this edition of Evergreen Trinity, and a merry Michaelmas 2024 to one and all. This is my first Evergreen as Editor-in-Chief, and I couldn’t be happier to bring you an edition full of wonderful articles, dealing with issues ranging from data-centres to food waste distribution, and bringing you from Lough Neagh, to Greece, and all the way back home down the river Liffey.
Evergreen Trinity was first published in 2021 by our fearless founders, Aoife Kiernan and Faye Murphy, with the aim of increasing environmental literacy amongst Trinity students, as well as providing a specialised forum for student writers passionate about the climate crisis and sustainability. Now in our fourth year of publication, and our second year as an officially recognised and capitated Trinity Publication, the Evergreen Trinity team continue to advocate and educate with inclusivity and accessibility at our core.
I am so lucky to be surrounded by a brilliant, motivated team - an enormous thanks to my Deputy Editor, Maeve Hopkins, and Head Copywriter, Luca McVey for all of their work - without which this edition would probably have happened, but perhaps chicken-scratched into the Urban Garden compost pile, or some other similarly primitive and base form unbefitting of the articles herein contained. A most special thanks also to Ellen Duggan, Sadbh Caulfield and Roisin Dolliver for their beautiful work laying out and illustrating this edition, and to Genevieve McDonnell and Thomas Lara Leonard for contributing all of the photography that you see inside, and for teaching me everything I know about truth and beauty…
If you are interested in contributing in any way to our Hillary 2025 edition of Evergreen Trinity, please do not hesitate to reach out to me via email at editorevergreentrinity@gmail.com, and we will find a space for you! To keep up to date with our events, launches, and submission opportunities, please follow our instagram page, run by the radiant Eva Duggan - @evergreentrinity.
Without further ado, happy reading!
Walsh
Your editress-in-chief, Dervla
Editorial Team for Vol. IV, Issue I
Dervla Walsh, Editor-In-Chief
Maeve Hopkins, Deputy Editor
Copyeditors for Vol. IV, Issue I
Eva Corrigan
Rachel Doyle
Maisie Greener
Alice Gogarty
Luca McVey, Head Copy Editor
Ellen Duggan, Layout Editor
Maria Langworthy
Suki Weckert
Photography & Illustrations for Vol. IV, Issue I
Thomas Lara Leonard
Genevieve McDonnell
Sadbh Caulfield
Roisin Dolliver
Contributing Writers for Vol. IV, Issue I
Darragh Doyle
Orla Fitzgerald
Kate Gilbertson
Alice Gogarty
Catherine Grehan
Mabel Ince
Delia Vlad
Maria Langworthy
Ruaidhrí Saulnier
Suki Weckert
Elise Zacherl
CONTENTS
Blooms and Bureaucracy: The Lough Neagh Action Plan
Wolves in Ireland: Re-introduction and the Shadow of Cromwell
Six convicted for 2018 fires in Mati, Greece, which claimed over 100 lives
At a Glance: The EU Nature Restoration Law
Citizen Science: How Participation Democratises Science
Boxers in the Breeze: Cloud-Seeding Technology and Politics of Weather Control
Food Redistribution, Sustainability and the Irish Food System
Right Of The River: New Streams of Thought
Google Ireland’s Plan for a Third Data Centre - even worth contemplating?
Blue-ing The Liffey
Blooms and Bureacracy: The Lough Neagh Action Plan
ELISE ZACHERL
The Facebook search results for ‘Lough Neagh’ are a varied catch: advertisements for local businesses on the water; pictures taken by those on an evening walk punctuated by announcements of another dog that has died after swimming in the water; a reminder to anglers not to consume the fish they may catch in the rivers that feed the lough; and infographics detailing one of the largest environmental catastrophes on the island of Ireland in modern history.
In what is now known as the Blue Green Algae Crisis, the summer of 2023 saw significant blooms of cyanobacteria at Lough Neagh, which provides over 40% of the drinking water for Northern Ireland. 2023 can be understood as the straw that broke the lough’s back, the culmination of decades of pollution from agriculture, sewage, septic tanks and industrial processes in combination with climate change and invasive species.
That summer, photosynthesising blue green algae flourished in the lake’s elevated water temperatures linked to climate change. Increased water clarity from zebra mussels (filter feeders that remove
suspended material from water) enabled sunlight to penetrate deeper into the lough, thereby increasing algal growth. Excess nutrients, such as phosphorus, compounded these conditions, giving rise to the thick scum of algae visible around the lough. Approximately 62% of excess phosphorus inputs are linked to agriculture, an industry that provides 5% of employment in the region.
Although phosphorus is an essential nutrient in plant growth, the use of slurry (fertiliser consisting of water and manure) can cause notable amounts of nutrients to enter waterways leading to Lough Neagh, according to the 37-point Lough Neagh Report and Action Plan published by the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (DAERA) this July. In the report, Andrew Muir, minister of DAERA, describes the situation at Lough Neagh as a “collective failure” and a result of the incorrect balance between strengthening the economy and protecting the environment.
The action plan is built upon four key pillars: education, investment, regulation and enforcement. It applies to both the lough and its catchment area,
which covers 43% of the land area of Northern Ireland. The report acknowledges the significant health and economic impacts of the return of this algae, and has developed schemes spanning multiple government departments, including small business research initiatives for investigating economically viable solutions to blooms of harmful algae, and a review of current penalties and fines for environmental crimes.
Reaction to the report has been mixed. Groups such as the Lough Neagh Partnership, responsible for the sustainable development of the lough, welcomed the plan. Others, such as the Save Lough Neagh group, have continued to protest at the lough against both the perceived inaction of politicians and attempts to shift blame onto farmers.
“2023 can be understood as the straw that broke the lough’s back, the culmination of decades of pollution from agriculture, sewage, septic tanks and industrial processes in combination with climate change and invasive species.”
One example of legislation causing such frustration is the Nutrients Action Programme (NAP), which was introduced in 2007 with the aim of reducing nutrient losses to soil by measures like restricting when slurry can be spread. Water quality improvements were achieved between 2007 and 2012, however the action plan reported that these trends had “in general
been reversed” as a result of intensification of the agricultural sector caused by the 2013 “Going for Growth” agri-food strategy. The strategy was implemented following 2012 economic analyses that showed that the recession in Northern Ireland was worse than the Agri-Food Strategy Board had originally thought, with a 25% decline in the manufacturing sector. The “Going for Growth” plan intended to revitalise the industry, aiming for a 60%
a 60% increase in sales by 2020, but that goal was not achieved.
On 3 September 2024 the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP), a UK environmental watchdog, delivered a report detailing Stormont’s failure to protect water quality. The report highlighted how the need for the Lough Neagh action plan reflects the failure of previous initiatives to implement proactive measures to prevent decline of the lough, despite it being both a European Special Protection Area and Northern Irish Area of Special Scientific Interest.
The OEP report also comes as a wider response to the possibility that Stormont may have breached the law in continuously failing to improve water quality, with legislation to protect water quality not implemented accordingly. Failure to agree, publish, and implement actions that would enable environmental improvement and protection have largely been attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic and the absence of a functioning Executive from February 2022 to February 2024.
Attention has also been directed towards the Earl of Shaftesbury, whose estate took ownership of the bed and soil of the lough in the 17th century. The current Lord Shaftesbury does not take any responsibility for the ongoing crisis, stating the situation at hand involved only the water of the lough, which he does not own, thus absolving him of any responsibility. Earl Shaftesbury has been criticised for permitting the removal of massive amounts of sand from the lough bed in a process known as sand
dredging, often used in the construction industry. Five companies are licensed to extract sand from specified zones in the lough, each firm paying Shaftesbury a levy for every tonne of sand removed. Years of extraction have caused a 16-17 metre lowering of the lough bed in places originally only 4-5 metres deep according to Dr Chris Hackney, a sand mining expert at Newcastle University. Groups such as the Lough Neagh Fishermen’s Co-operative Society say this has had significant ecological impact on the area, although researchers and campaigners continue to emphasise the lack of research into the process. The Lough Neagh report includes one action related to sand dredging, with the intention of “commencing a scientific review of the environmental impact.”
Campaigners believe Earl Shaftesbury should donate the lough to the public, and although he has stated that he is open to the idea of selling it, he has refused to simply give it away.
The situation at Lough Neagh is complex and multifactorial. It is unclear what the future holds for the health of the water and the knock-on effects this may have for the Northern Irish people and economy. However, the path that led to this current situation is easily understood: what we see now is the climax of an uncoordinated approach by government, private owners and varied commercial interests.
Wolves In Ireland: Re-introduction and the shadow of Cromwell
ALICE GOGARTY
Debate has been sparked in recent years over the possibility of reintroducing grey wolves to Ireland. Hunted to extinction by the end of the 18th century, the wolf has been absent from our shores for nearly three centuries. Reintroduction is contentious among farmers and conservationists alike, but before exploring the for and against of reintroducing an apex predator into the Irish ecosystem, let us take a brief look at the history of wolves in Ireland. They were here before us, after all.
Ireland was once riddled with wolves. The earliest radiocarbon evidence comes from Castlepook Cave in Cork, dating back to 34,000BC before this place was an island. Documents suggest Ireland’s wolf population numbered at least 400 in the first half of the 17th century and some estimates go as high as 1000. Today, its ghost hides in the landscape, with Irish words for wolf like Mac Tíre or Faol heard in place names like ‘Feltrim Hill’ (Fealdruim) near Swords, or Kerry’s ‘Iskanamacteera Lake’ (uisce na mac tíre/water of the wolves).
It is thought that the last Irish wolf was shot in 1786 on the slopes of Mount Leinster, County Carlow.
Written legislation against wolves first appeared in 1584 when John Perrot, Lord Deputy of Ireland, ordered Robert Legge, Deputy Remembrancer of the Irish Exchequer, to kill off bothersome wolves. Three decades later, an Englishman, Henric Tuttesham, was authorised to post four men and 24 dogs in every county (128 men and 768 dogs for the whole island) for the next seven years, receiving £ 3 per wolf killed. Human-wolf relations were inching towards all-out war when Oliver Cromwell landed in 1649. Contemporary writings suggest wolf numbers were rising concomitant with the bloodshed of recent conflicts such as the Nine Years War (1593-1603) and the ongoing Cromwellian conquests. Additionally, numerous gruesome tales cropped up involving wolves descending on razed villages to prey on the dead and injured. Dramatic accounts aside, Ireland’s wolf problem was substantial enough that on 27 April 1652, Cromwell issued orders preventing exportation of wolfhounds, popular overseas for protecting estates of Roman nobles. That same year the Cromwellian government put an official bounty on the wolf, ranging from £ 6 for females to 10 shillings per pup. According to the UK National Archives’ online currency converter, £ 1 in 1650 was about a
fortnight’s pay for a skilled tradesman. A total wolf bounty of £ 3,847 5s was handed out countrywide between July 1649 and November 1656. Cromwell’s efforts to stamp out the wolf paid off: by the next century, Canis lupus was extinct in Ireland.
Controversy on wolf reintroduction was ignited in 2019 when then-Green Party leader, Eamon Ryan, included it alongside a motion on forestry. Ryan later clarified no reintroduction plans were under discussion, and that holds true today. This lack of government appetite for the subject seems largely due to the perceived hostility of farmers, something that has not changed much in three centuries. Without the support of rural communities, a reintroduction program would not get off the ground, and any preparations would have to actively engage those impacted (sheep farmers, dog owners, etc.).
Despite on and off discussions since 2019, Ireland seems years away from welcoming the wolf back.
“Cromwell’s efforts to stamp out the wolf paid off: by the next century, Canis lupus was extinct in Ireland.”
Why would modern Ireland want wolves, anyhow?
Perhaps it’s just a nostalgic ideal, an unrealistic attempt at recovering some lost Irish wildness smothered by British rule. But no - on closer inspection, there are tangible things the wolf can offer us, things which may prove a bargaining chip in this ever more climate-conscious world…
any large predators. The scariest we can do is a fox.
As a result, wild deer populations grew. Exact numbers are unknown, but Wicklow alone has an estimated 100,000+. The Department of Agriculculture published a report by the Irish Deer Management Strategy Group finding that deer numbers are now unsustainable in many parts of the country. An overabundance of deer damages forests: excess ‘browsing’ behaviour (feeding on leaves, shoots, fruit, and even bark) means that trees are struggling to naturally regenerate and expand as they would in a healthy, balanced ecosystem, making afforestation projects difficult in affected areas. It is particularly harmful for protected native woodland, which makes up a mere 2% of Ireland’s landscape.
The main motivation for reintroducing wolves is thus to manage wild deer numbers. Deer are currently regulated by annual culls, usually during open season (except protected native red deer in Kerry, where local national park staff manage numbers).
The wolf’s extinction left Ireland’s ecosystem without
The year preceding the IDMSG report saw a record 50,000 deer culled, including 15,000 in Wicklow. The report was partly concerned with the ‘sustainable’ management of deer numbers, but is such a large-scale culling program sustainable long-term? Culled deer are generally sold to licensed game dealers, who provide venison to supermarkets and restaurants, the skins sent to tanneries to be made into leather. While this ‘recycles’ culled deer back into the economy, it may be argued that the truly sustainable option is to encourage a prey-predator cycle whereby prey is consumed completely by its environment.
Predators naturally regulate prey numbers, preventing overgrazing and thus protecting previously vulnerable woodland. Wolf reintroduction advocates point to how “landscapes of fear” evolve where prey learn to avoid areas where they are easy targets, like rivers or roads, leading to natural protection for woodland around waterways and less roadkill. The former positively impacts floodplains and natural water-filtering.
balanced by wolves; however, Ireland is not Yellowstone. Pippa Hackett, Minister of State for Land Use and Biodiversity, told the Irish Times earlier this year that reintroduction would not be feasible without proper land-use policy. The International Union for Conservation of Nature’s guidelines for species reintroduction includes the condition that “threat(s) that caused any previous extinction have been correctly identified and removed or sufficiently reduced”, and loss of native woodland contributed to the wolf’s extinction in Cromwell’s time just astargeted killings by farmers did. Reintroducing wolves would thus require sufficient suitable habitat. Our national parks are the safest bet, but even the largest (the Wicklow Mountains with an area of about 23,000 hectares or 230 km2) could not hold more than a handful of wolves: a pack’s territory range covers at minimum about 130 km2 but can cover 10 times more depending on food scarcity.
“In a word, to rewild the country we must first rewild ourselves.”
Wolves also encourage good herd health, preying on sick, old, or injured animals. The presence of wolves in certain areas of northern Spain found the rate of Bovine TB among wild boars reduced there, which then had a positive carry-over effect on TB in livestock. This could be a key negotiating point with Irish farmers as Sika deer, one of three deer species here, have recently been found carrying TB.
Ecosystems elsewhere have been successfully re-
So, we should nurture natural landscapes and engage in local conversation. In a word, to rewild the country we must first rewild ourselves. The wolf’s disappearance in some ways represents Ireland’s move into modernity: a distancing from nature which resulted in the planet-wide climate crisis we find ourselves facing today. The same principle needed to tackle that global problem might be applied to the more local scale of the wolf discussion: only by rethinking our relationship with the natural world will we prepare ourselves to see the wolf again.
Six convicted for 2018 fires in Mati, Greece, which claimed over 100 lives
MARIA LANGWORTHY
Almost six years after wildfires killed 104 people and injured many more, the Misdemeanour Courts in Athens have convicted six people of involuntary manslaughter and criminal negligence.
On 23 July 2018, a fire spread rapidly from the property of Konstantinos Angelopoulos, who was burning branches on his property in Mati, a seaside town east of Athens. As the fire raged, it claimed the lives of 104 people, many of whom were trapped in their cars while attempting to escape. Surviving witnesses claim that no one was given warning of the spreading fire, and in fact, many vehicles were accidentally directed toward the fire, causing many cars to become trapped in the narrow streets of Mati.
Despite 21 people being prosecuted for their negligence regarding the fire, only six were found guilty. Of the six, five were fire and emergency service officials, with the sixth being Angelopoulos. A recent article in the Balkan Insight found that a total jail time of up to 111 years and suspension for five years was faced by those charged. However, the six people convicted also had the option to buy their way out of serving prison time as a means of restitution.
Ultimately, the presiding judge capped the jail time at five years and found that the sentences could be served concurrently. The six convicted individuals were allowed to pay fines of up to €40,000 instead of serving out their jail sentence, the Balkan Insight reported.
““Your court is an insult to the dead, the living and the truth.””
The former chief of the Greek Fire Service, Sotiris Terzoudis, was found guilty of negligent homicide as well as negligent bodily harm for his involvement in diverting a helicopter that was meant to aid firefighters. Additionally, the former deputy chief of the Greek Fire Service, Vassilis Mattaiopoulos, and Ioannis Fostieris, then head of the Unified Fire Department Operations Coordination Centre, were also found guilty of homicide by negligence. The former commander of the Athens Fire Service, Nikolaos Panagiotopoulos, was found guilty of manslaughter by negligence, whilst Charalambos Chionis, then commander of the Fire Service of Eastern Attica, was found guilty of homicide by negligence and bodily harm by negligence.
The remaining 15 politicians, police, and firefighters were cleared of all charges, sparking anger amongst the victims’ families. Many feel as if the sentences given both to those convicted and those who were cleared of charges were unjust given the severity of the tragedy. ABC News reported that emotions were high as relatives of the victims shouted in court: “Your court is an insult to the dead, the living and the truth.” Many have vowed to keep fighting this outcome in hopes that all officials involved will be held accountable for their actions and receive punishment that reflects the severity of the tragedy. Greece’s deputy justice minister, Ioannis Bougas, told Skai Radio that the sentences faced by the six convicted will likely be appealed by a state prosecutor.
This tragedy in Mati is just one of many disasters induced by climate change which are becoming increasingly common, raising the question of who should be held responsible in the face of these tragedies. Experts have expressed that there were multiple contributions to this disaster, including poor urban planning and an excess of buildings near forested areas. The court also found that the Fire Service did not inform the public of recommended evacuations.
Moreover, those convicted were accused of poor coordination amongst firefighting forces and blamed for not mobilizing ships to rescue the people who had to escape via the sea, leading to many residents and vacationers trapped inside their homes and cars, as well as nine people drowning at sea.
It is becoming increasingly more common for regions like Greece to experience prolonged heat waves due to climate change. The hot, dry summers in addition to strong winds is what was believed to have amplified the speed with which the flames reached Mati. There is no longer time to be uncoordinated when it comes to keeping the public safe from events induced by climate change. Holding government and firefighting officials accountable for their lack of planning and action is the first step in ensuring that tragedies such as this one do not continue. Climate injustice will continue if elected officials, fire chiefs, and those in charge of public safety are not held responsible.
“There is no longer time to be uncoordinated when it comes to keeping the public safe from events induced by climate change... Climate injustice will continue if elected officials, fire chiefs, and those in charge of public safety are not held responsible.”
The Greek government promised to propose evacuation plans as soon as wildfires reached areas with high populations. However, these new plans will never be enough to make up for the loss of loved ones. The International Association of Wildland Fire reported that in the spring of 2021, the General Secretariat of Civil Protection put € 25m towards a forest fuel management program in areas where vegetation is heavily affected by wind. In September
2021, Greece also established a new Ministry of Climate Crisis and Civil Protection (MCCCP) with with the goal of making changes to help Greece avoid future wildfires.
While these are steps in the right direction, emergency responders and the local government still have a responsibility to protect the public. These forces are meant to work together, not place blame, to ensure
the safety of the local community. It is essential that these divisions are clearly defined so that there is an understanding of who is accountable for different aspects of communal safety. Strong communication and an agreed upon standard of operation between first responders and the local government is a crucial step in guaranteeing effective coordination, response, and prevention, should a tragedy like the wildfires in Mati ever occur again.
At a glance: the EU Nature Restoration Law
DARRAGH DOYLE
On August 18, the EU’s newest environmental regulation – the Nature Restoration Law (NRL) - came into force, two years after first being proposed. Not too long ago, this landmark piece of legislation appeared all but consigned to the scrapheap, owing to opposition from several member states amid continent-wide farmer unrest. However, a last-ditch lobbying effort led by Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications, Eamon Ryan, garnered the support needed for the proposal to be adopted by the Environmental Council of the European Union in June. Indeed, the NRL has proved contentious since its conception, and has emerged from the EU legislative process to both enthusiasm and trepidation. So, what exactly is the point of the NRL? What will it mean in practice? And why is it proving so controversial?
The NRL has been introduced at a time when the EU’s ecosystems are in a worrying state. The European Environment Agency (EEA) found in 2020 that 81% of habitats, 39% of bird species and over 60% of other species protected under EU law have a poor conservation status. At a domestic level, the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) has painted a similarly bleak picture. Its 2019 study of EU protected habitats and species in Ireland illustrated that
85% of our protected habitats and 30% of our protected species are in an unfavourable condition.
The NRL, which forms a key part of the EU Biodiversity Strategy, seeks not only to preserve but also to restore nature. The European Commission and the EEA have stressed the role of nature restoration in increasing biodiversity, as well as achieving the wider environmental goals of the EU, particularly in the areas of climate change mitigation and climate adaptation. The law also aims to realise significant economic benefits, with the European Commission estimating the addition of € 8 to € 38 of economic value for every € 1 spent on nature restoration.
The regulation’s overarching objective is to ensure the restoration of all ecosystems currently in an unfavourable condition by 2050. In the interim, it aims for the restoration of “at least 20% of land areas and at least 20% of sea areas by 2030”. Alongside this general goal, several habitat and species-
specific restoration targets are set. Article 4 of the NRL addresses “terrestrial, coastal and freshwater ecosystems”; member states must put in place measures to restore a range of habitats under this heading, including forests, rivers and lakes, rocky habitats and beaches. The law requires the restoration (and re-establishment, where necessary) of at least 30% of these habitats to a good condition by 2030, 60% by 2040 and 90% by 2050. Article 5 outlines similar targets in respect of the restoration of marine habitats.
The regulation contains provisions specifically addressing pollinator populations. Member states are tasked with putting in place measures to “improve pollinator diversity and reverse the decline of pollinator populations by 2030”. The NRL also mandates the restoration of agricultural habitats and associated species, such as grassland butterflies and farmland birds.
“The regulation’s overarching objective is to ensure the restoration of all ecosystems currently in an unfavourable condition by 2050. ”
Most significant for Ireland is the regulation’s impact on wetlands. Farmer and journalist Hannah Quinn Mulligan, speaking on RTÉ’s Countrywide podcast, underlined rewetting as the most contentious aspect of the law in Ireland, particularly for farmers and rural communities. However, Article 11 of the NRL outlines that all measures are to be entirely volun-
tary for farmers and private landowners. In addition, government TDs including Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Pippa Hackett, have asserted that, at a minimum, the 2030 and 2040 rewetting targets can be met solely on state lands. The NRL does not solely impact rural areas. Regarding urban areas, member states are required to achieve an “increasing trend” in the amount of urban green space and urban tree cover by 2031. The NRL also seeks to increase tree cover more generally, calling on member states to collectively contribute to the planting of at least three billion trees by 2030.
Member states are each required to implement a “national restoration plan” to set out how they intend to meet the regulation’s targets. These plans are to be submitted to the European Commission by 1 September 2026. The implementation of Ireland’s national restoration plan is to be led by the NPWS. While the government has pointed towards their € 3.15bn Climate and Nature Fund as a source of funding for measures under the NRL, farming groups, such as the Irish Natura and Hill Farmers Association, alongside opposition TDs, have called for clarity around how landowners will be incentivised to engage with the measures under the regulation.
The NRL provides an ambitious roadmap towards a more biodiverse, ecologically secure and prosperous EU. It remains to be seen whether our government, and those in other member states, can assuage the persistent fears of the farming lobby and deliver on it.
Citizen Science: How Participation Democratises Science
Citizen science, a movement that encourages everyday people to volunteer to get involved in scientific research, breaks barriers between scientists and non-scientists and has the potential to transform how people think about the natural world. By allowing anyone with curiosity to contribute to scientific efforts, it democratises the creation of knowledge, making science a more inclusive and participatory process.
The world of scientific research can often feel intimidating and impenetrable, appearing as a space open only to the select few who commit their lives to studying and understanding the physical and natural world. It is seen as a specialized field, where only those with years of training and education can make meaningful contributions. However, in today’s world, where we have technology at our fingertips, the gap between professional researchers and the general public is shrinking, making participation in scientific work more accessible than many realise.
One such way is through participating in a citizen science initiative. This can mean contributing observations and data, analysing data sets, or interacting with a program made by scientists. It can mean executing tasks such as tracking the mi-
MABEL INCE
monitoring water quality in local streams, or analysing data from outer space. The scale of these projects can range from small, local efforts to global networks of citizen scientists working together to tackle large-scale environmental concerns.
“In today’s world, where we have technology at our fingertips, the gap between professional researchers and the general public is shrinking, making participation in scientific work more accessible than many realise.”
While the modern era has renewed the momentum of citizen science, the first citizen scientists are thought to have been American colonialists tracking the weather. Headed by figures including Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, they tried to figure out patterns in meteorology by collecting data from as many sources as possible, asking people to record their observations and contribute them to their study. Much later, the first instance of the term “citizen science” being used was in 1989, to describe a group of volunteers in the United States who collected rain samples as part of the Audubon Society’s acid-rain awareness campaign.
Since then, the phenomenon has expanded and has been the facilitating force behind numerous research projects.
Many citizen science initiatives take place annually, collecting data that can be used to identify trends over time. The RSPB’s Big Garden Birdwatch, had over 600,000 participants last year, taking note of birds visiting their garden in the span of an hour. Using the collected data, they have been able to note changes in house sparrow populations and begin work on initiatives to help protect them. Another well-known project, Globe at Night, likewise relies on thousands of volunteers to gather data on light pollution levels. These efforts not only help researchers but also increase public awareness about pressing environmental issues.
At its core, citizen science is a collaboration between scientists and non-scientists. It allows professional scientists to gather large-scale data by tapping into the curiosity and engagement of the public, while enabling individuals to explore their interest in the world surrounding them. In opening the doors to research and scientific conversation, scientists become more in tune with the interests and needs of everyday people. In turn, the general public becomes more conscious of the role exploration and research plays in their day-to-day lives, expands its scientific literacy, and increases its attention to the work being done in research institutions. The exchange is mutually beneficial, fostering a more scientifically engaged society, while advancing
research that requires participation.
The beauty of citizen science is that you do not need any special skills, training or to be studying for a STEM degree, to participate. Whether you’re an avid hiker, looking at birds on your commute, or simply happy to pore over a data set in your spare time, there is likely a project out there that matches your interests. In this way, it becomes personal to the person participating. Citizen scientists have the freedom to engage with research through their personal lens, within the context of their personal life. If you notice the birdfeeders you always put up in your garden are emptier than usual or are concerned about the quality of water near your home, beginning to collect data is an excellent way to start raising awareness of the issue. In this way, citizen science can be a means for advocacy. Instead of waiting for professional researchers to take an interest, communities and individuals can take initiative. The way people interact with citizen science projects is a measure of what the general public cares about, what issues they hope researchers will spend their time on.
To get involved in citizen science, simply search online for a project that suits your interests. There are plenty of projects you can engage with from the comfort of your room, and others that encourage you to explore nature to collect data. A platform
called Zooniverse offers hundreds of citizen science projects that cover a range of topics, while apps like iNaturalist and Anecdata are another way to get involved. You can also check in with local organizations, including museums and universities, who may be hosting citizen science events.
“When citizens feel empowered to contribute to scientific discoveries, the impact of that research broadens, making it a collective effort that transcends the boundaries of academia.”
The success of these projects depends on the participation of the public, so the more engagement the better. When citizens feel empowered to contribute to scientific discoveries, the impact of that research broadens, making it a collective effort that transcends the boundaries of academia. By engaging with citizen science, you can contribute to research and connect with the world around you in a new, impactful way.
Boxers in the Breeze: Cloud-Seeding Technology and Politics of Weather Control
Davidson and Lin (2024) report on the “9/2 Chongqing underwear crisis,” a peculiar event that occurred following several weeks of extreme heat and drought. In response to the prolonged heat, authorities deployed cloud-seeding technology, launching nearly 200 rockets to induce rainfall. While this effort successfully brought precipitation, it was unexpectedly followed by a windstorm with gusts reaching 122 km/h (76 mph), scattering laundry from high-rise balconies across the city. Given the extended drought, residents had reasonably left their laundry out overnight, unaware of the abrupt weather change. The event went viral on social media, amassing over 7m
CATHERINE GREHAN
views under the hashtag “underwear crisis.” Although many residents attributed the unusual weather event to cloud seeding, authorities denied any connection, defending the credibility of the technology. Despite these assertions, public mockery grew, with a separate hashtag, viewed by 18 million users, remarking, “If you think you messed up at work, just think of the Chongqing Meteorological Bureau.”
Cloud seeding is a weather modification technique where substances like silver iodide are dispersed into clouds to stimulate precipitation by creating nuclei for water droplets to form. Developed in the 1940s, cloud seeding has been employed for purposes ranging from drought mitigation to enhancing conditions for large-scale political events. In China, this practice is referred to as “blueskying” (Chien, 2019), and has been utilized for events such as the 2008 Beijing Olympics and the Chinese Communist Party’s centenary celebrations. Beyond controlling weather, cloud seeding is a tool for projecting state power and control over nature. However, this raises concerns about sovereignty, equity, and the longterm ecological impacts of altering weather systems. Cloud seeding’s environmental and ethical implications remain a subject of debate (Davidson, 2021).
James Pollard Espy, a pioneer in American rainmaking, theorized in his 1841 work, The Philosophy of Storms, that artificial rain could be produced by forcing humid air upward into cooler atmospheric layers. The first federally funded meteorologist, in in 1842, he attempted to test this thesis by setting
large forest fires to create updrafts, but his experiments ultimately failed (Klein, 2015).
Cloud seeding has been employed in military contexts, most notably during the Vietnam War under “Operation Popeye”, where it was used to induce rainfall and disrupt enemy supply lines (Bunker, 1996).
Classifying cloud seeding as a “non-lethal weapon” reflects an anthropocentric focus on its immediate effects on human targets, while neglecting broader environmental consequences. This manipulation of natural systems, regardless of its purpose, highlights the anthropocentric biases inherent in weather modification, prioritizing short-term tactical advantages over potentially irreversible ecological impacts.
“Its deployment is often less about genuine environmental concern and more about reinforcing power dynamics, positioning governments and institutions as capable of controlling natural systems.”
The reliance on cloud seeding as a short-term solution reflects a broader, deeply entrenched anthropocentric paradigm in climate interventions, where environmental manipulation is primarily employed to assert human dominance over nature. While cloud seeding may offer temporary relief from extreme weather events, it fails to address the fundamental causes of climate instability. More critically, its deployment is often less about genuine environmental concern and more about reinforcing power dyna-
mics, positioning governments and institutions as capable of controlling natural systems. This is particularly evident when cloud seeding is used to project state authority and prestige during significant events, helping maintain an illusion of control over nature, rather than addressing the long-term ecological consequences of such interventions. In this context, cloud seeding functions as a tool of political symbolism, with environmental sustainability entirely dismissed as a concern.
Additionally, Witt’s 2016 paper highlights fundamental issues in the broader discourse on climate change adaptation, particularly the way in which technological solutions are evaluated. In his discussion of cloud seeding as a potential response to water shortages, Witt notes that “cloud seeding can be a cost-effective part of the solution.” The emphasis on cost-effectiveness here encapsulates a critical problem: the prioritization of short-term economic gains over the consideration of long-term environmental sustainability and broader ecological impacts. By framing climate interventions such as cloud seeding in economic terms, we risk neglecting the more profound consequences these technologies may have on ecosystems, weather patterns, and biodiversity, thus perpetuating the anthropocentric perspective that has contributed to the climate crisis in the first place.
As Chongqing’s airborne underwear floated skyward, it served as a reminder that even when we think we are manipulating the weather, the fallout remains unpredictable.
Food Redistribution, Sustainability and the Irish Food System
ood is at the heart of everything we do. If it is cultural, political, social, and communal, then food is also environmental. At the intersection of politics and the personal, we see a gap where food policy becomes environmental policy, and where the ever-growing divide of wealth and quality of life has an opportunity to be addressed. Food policy offers the opportunity to bridge these gaps.
Food redistribution, as the name indicates, is the reallocation of food that would otherwise be wasted or thrown away from businesses, shops, producers, farmers, etc. towards individuals who would otherwise go without. Commonly actualised by grassroots organisations, redistribution has become an increasingly popular modus for food equity around the world. Within these bounds, states and other governmental entities have addressed food redistribution through issue-specific policies.
States in the US, such as Minnesota, have granted funding to ‘purchase’ food waste from donors as a means to incentivise donation. Perhaps most well known, in 2016 France passed legislation which
KATE GILBERTSON
which makes food redistribution donation mandatory for businesses of a certain size. In comparison, Irish policy has yet to offer distinct comparable innovation. In comparison, Irish policy has yet to offer distinct comparable innovation. Food distribution and its place within the Irish system and the country’s greater sustainability effort has gone underdiscussed in broader environmental circles, despite a prolific grassroots and academic research community.
“Commonly actualised by grassroots organisations, redistribution has become an increasingly popular modus for food equity around the world.”
Within Ireland, there is a notable proliferance of food waste. Compared to the EU average, which, in 2022, reached 130 kg per person, Ireland’s per person average of 146 kg appears immense. This is, of course, spread across industries and households alike. Amongst the 750,000 tonnes of food wasted in 2022, the three most notable areas were Manufacturing and Processing with 230,000 tonnes,
Restaurants and Food Service at 157,000 tonnes, and Households at 220,000. Retail and Distribution resulted in 90,000 tonnes and Primary Production produced 53,000 tonnes (Environmental Protection Agency).
This nuance is quite important when looking at the policy used to address the issue of waste. Whereas a government may incentivise food donation within households and businesses alike quite easily, it is much more difficult to de-incentivise non-compliance within households than within business practices.
Within the Irish policy arena, the Waste Management (Collection Permit) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2023 has established a policy norm of incentivisation. The policy, which targets commercial waste specifically, aims to make the collection and recycling of bio-waste more convenient and less expensive than commercial waste collection ( Introduction of Incentivised… ). Such regulations, although not a means of directly mandating food redistribution, indicate a shift towards incentivisation in the food policy realm.
Irish food policy, more concretely, has established guidelines for donation and what constitutes an acceptable ‘food waste’ donation. Policy makes discrepancies between foods that are past their ‘bestby’ vs. their ‘use-by’ date. Foods which have gone past their ‘best-buy’ date may still be donated, as
the date solely indicates when the product will begin to lose quality, rather than edibility. Use-by dates, on the other hand, offer a more strict timeline for food safety – i.e. the food product should not be consumed past the ‘use-by’ date unless it has been frozen. This is clearly best for both donor and recipient protection – legal and health. However, it does also leave much of the discretion in the hands of the donor. Where there are hesitations of legal obligation and responsibility, donors may be more conservative in their donation habits.
There are two cases which I believe provide ample direction for those interested in food redistribution-policy and to help to bring the discussion beyond Ireland. As touched on previously, France’s 2016 legislation, LOI n° 2016-138 du 11 février 2016 relative à la lutte contre le gaspillage alimentaire (1) seeks to reduce food waste by 50% by 2025. The law creates an order of action through which supermarkets can reduce their rate of disposal. It also creates the legal obligation for large supermarkets to foster partnerships with charities through which they donate their unsold food products. A 2019 expansion of the law extends such obligations to largescale catering networks and companies within the food industry (France’s Law for Fighting…).
Although there are certainly limits to the legislation, such as the exclusion of many actors within food-supply chains (the policy originally solely focused on supermarkets), it was the first of its kind in
most rights. Such innovation, while valid to critique, must simultaneously be lauded amongst a food-policy arena which consistently shies away from addressing excessive waste.
Subsequently, Hennepin County, Minnesota has passed legislation which incentivises producers to donate their food that would otherwise go unsold in the market. The programme allows for the reimbursement of donors for donated food products, through grants which are accorded to intermediary organisations (Food Rescue…). Beyond simply making food waste diversion simpler and creating opportunity for producers who face financial barriers when considering donation, the use of intermediary charity organisations (such as food shelves) to distribute the food creates a community strengthening tie. Such incentivisation, although distinctly different from the French law above, begins to paint a portrait of what a multi-fold policy realm could look like when addressing food waste generally.
There are numerous organisations within Dublin, and Ireland as a whole, which have contributed to the establishment of food-waste diversion networks. Food waste diversion is an innately grassroots effort, often beginning as an organisation
specific community area, it is only later on, post-development, that they are typically aided by policy or government funding. This can take form through government subsidisation of food waste (i.e. payment directly to the donors) or punishment for non-participation. While this varies by municipality, the foundations of policy remain quite similar in two different camps; (1) incentivisation and (2) punishment. It is still, however, worth exploring further where this intersection arises and what other states are doing to promote food redistribution as a part of the fabric of a sustainable food system.The largest, perhaps most well known and internationally connected of these organisations is FoodCloud, which works to divert food waste from businesses in a more centralised manner. What is key when considering such multi-level systems, like those of food redistribution and policy, is the impact that having grassroots organisations across multiple levels can have.
Food redistribution itself takes form in a multitude of ways and organisation levels – its nature fosters opportunities to address the complex task of food redistribution through diverse means. Leaving the door for food redistribution open to the effect of local innovation allows for the needs of the community to be met by those who know the needs themselves. Within the conversation of sustainability, this maintains a bottom-up approach most considerate of local communities.
“Beyond simply making food waste diversion simpler and creating opportunity for producers who face financial barriers when considering donation, the use of intermediary charity organisations (such as food shelves) to distribute the food creates a community strengthening tie.”
“Food
waste diversion is an innately grassroots effort- often beginning as an organisation which connects donors and recipients in a specific community area, it is only later on, post development, that they are typically aided by policy or government funding.”
Looking forward, Irish policy reflects optimism towards fostering the incentivisation of sustainability. Obviously, there is not an all-encompassing policy which can solve food waste, nor a policy which can address hunger. However, the bolstering of community work which combats the aforementioned issues promises to bring about a more sustainable Ireland – socially, economically, and environmentally; while restoring citizen food dignity and autonomy.
Right Of The River: New Streams of Thought
ÓRLA FITZGERALD
On July 5 2024, a court in Quito, Ecuador ruled that the Machángara River, which runs through the city, has legal personhood. The case was filed as a Protection Action by the Kitu Karu Indigenous people, to address the serious pollution of the river. The court ruled that because the river is alive, it is entitled to rights of protection, promotion, and restoration. Essentially, the municipal area surrounding the river has been ruled legally responsible for the violation of the river’s rights. The judge ordered that a decontamination plan be taken into action without delay. The legal protection of nature, under the pretence of local indigenous philosophies, may be a huge turning point in the battle against the climate crisis. One can argue that the root of the climate crisis is the cognitive separation between human society and nature, and that to bridge this cognitive dissonance, we must learn from these philosophies.
Granting legal personhood to rivers has become a global movement, with 14 successful cases worldwide since 2017. The Universal Declaration of River Rights has stated the six rights a river is entitled to: The right to flow,the right to perform essential functions within its ecosystem, the right to be free from
pollution, the right to feed and be fed by sustainable aquifers,the right to native biodiversity, and finally, the right to restoration. These rights are scientifically based, as the data show that these rights are consistently denied to rivers globally . According to the UN environment programme, over 40% of the world’s rivers are severely polluted. More research on downtrends in biodiversity, sustainable aquifers, etc.
How can a river be granted legal personhood? Perception is key. It is difficult to define life and its boundaries. Humans are home to trillions of microorganisms – where do we draw the line between us and our internal and external microflora? We are dependent on these microflora, as we couldn’t function as humans without them. This occurs across all life on earth; no life form is independent of other life forms and its physical environment.
The Gaia theory essentially views Earth as one singular ‘living’ entity, a complex interconnected system, such as the human body. Should we give rights to Earth the same way that we give rights to living beings? Would this philosophy make it easier for us humans to conceptualise the need for rights for
nature? We could then view deforestation as degradation of Earth’s lungs, the pollution of rivers as contamination of Earth’s circulatory systems, and climate change as meaning that the Earth is sick and is presenting with a fever.
We, as humans, have the option between two possible narratives in Gaian theory; we could be a virus attacking the Earth, or we could be the antibodies doing everything in our power to eliminate Earth’s ailment. Would it be easier to treat earth’s sickness if we personified the planet? Many people’s argument for not engaging in climate activism is “it’s not going to make a difference, the planet is doomed regardless of what we do”. However, when it comes to a human patient with little to no chance of survival, all resources and efforts are carried out to preserve this life regardless. Maybe we should implement this effort to combat Earth’s “sickness”, considering that we are dependent on Earth.
“We could then view deforestation as degradation of Earth’s lungs, the pollution of rivers as contamination of Earth’s circulatory systems, and climate change as meaning that the Earth is sick and is presenting with a fever. ”
As a scientist, I understand the integral role science plays in environmental restoration. However, philosophy, virtue ethics, and spiritual beliefs have an essential role in the behaviour and attitude that humans have towards the environment. Humans are the cause of the climate crisis, but they also can be the solution to the climate crisis.The barrier to the solution is funding, resources, large corporations and legislation - all human-made concepts,
paradoxical, isn’t it? Considering that humans are the key agents causing climate change, perhaps ancient and today’s society may act as the bridge to get the science into action, to get nature protected by law and to get velocity in the climate change crisis battle.
There are many ancient cultures which have deep-rooted and innate respect for nature, such as the Celts in Ireland. I would argue that the root of the climate crisis is the way in which western human society considers itself separate from nature.
The recognition of local indigenous beliefs, wisdoms and people would not only have positive outcomes for human rights and historical integrity, but could act as a catalyst for planetary stewardship.
Rivers in ancient celtic Ireland were sacred, and personified with unique backstories. Often a person, mythological figure or Goddess becomes submerged in a river’s source and becomes the living embodiment of a river. For example, the river Boyne is considered the personification of the celtic pagan goddess Bóann. Today, under the Water Framework Directive (Ireland’s water quality assessment standard) (WDF), 65% of water bodies within the Boyne catchment are at risk of failing to meet WFD objectives. Resurgence of folklore surrounding local nature could result in more respect for the river. Citizen science projects can allow for a community to not only learn about their surrounding ecology, but have a say in protecting it. There is strength in numbers. Public interest is needed to pass legislation, the catalyst for scientific research and action. Rights
for Nature Ireland has proposed the idea ogiving the river Shannon rights to the citizens assembly - which will be put to the Seanad Éireann. The vast majority of the assembly members voted in favour of legal protection of biodiversity and procedural environmental rights for both people and nature.
There are some challenges to address. Liability has proved as the deciding factor of the effectiveness of giving rights to rivers, with two cases being overturned due to unclear liability and guardianship. When the rights are violated, who is responsible? The legislation needs to be carefully considered as some level of pollution may be unavoidable, but a business-as-usual approach is dangerous. Each economic activity must be assessed using an environmental and social impact assessment. The Kitu Karu people in Ecuador have demonstrated that community led initiatives can have powerful impacts leading to global audiences and influence. The court ruling in Quito, Ecuador shows that it is possible that morality and human-nature relationships can rule over an extractive economy. The level of pollution in rivers globally justifies the call for change in legislation, as clearly human society is out of balance with the environment. We humans have had such a profound impact on the planet in geological time that we have created a new geological era, the Anthropocene, ‘ the human age’. This should sound alarm bells. It is time to grant rights to nature. Community approaches and reverence for nature is key. We are still just as linked to nature as our ancestors were and indigenous communities are even if we don’t feel it, we can’t avoid it.
Google Ireland’s Plan for a Third Data Centre - even worth contemplating?
SUKI WECKERT
Google Ireland, which launched its first data centre in Ireland in 2012, announced plans for the construction of a third, 72,400m2 data centre, in June. This data centre was planned to be situated in the southwest of Dublin, adjacent to their two existing centres in Grange Castle Business Park. These data centres store and process massive amounts of data, making them indispensable for cloud-based work and the development of artificial intelligence. It is no surprise that the demand for data centres is growing steadily, together with the push to develop AI. Ireland has become a hub for data centres, which bring alongside them construction jobs, investments, and global visibility, a much-emphasised factor. However, data centres also create serious problems, calling into question who really benefits from their construction and if building another one is acceptable.
Data centres consume lots of energy and water. In addition, they produce a lot of e-waste, including toxic materials. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), data centres account for approximately 1-1.5% of global electricity use and 1% of energy related greenhouse gas emissions. If this
seems like a number worth noting, compare it to the metered electricity that data centres have consumed so far in Ireland alone. According to the Central Statistics Office (CSO), the metered electricity consumption of urban households fell from 21% in 2021 to 18% in 2023 and the consumption of rural dwellings has likewise lowered from 12% in 2021 to 10% in 2023. However, the electricity consumption of data centres rose from 14% in 2021 to 21% in 2023, despite the comparatively modest consumption of 5% in 2015. In addition, the energy demanded keeps rising. As the CSO summarised, the increase in electricity consumption between January to March 2015 and October to December 2022 was 400%. Data centres consume a fifth of Ireland’s energy supply and more energy than all urban households combined, and the demand for energy keeps on growing.
Organisations including Extinction Rebellion Ireland (ERI), Friends of the Earth, An Taisce, as well as People Before Profit (PBP) have all voiced disapproval of the plans. On a local level, ERI has stressed the negative impact on the affected community’s water supply, whilst EirGrid has warned that if the energy
consumption of data centres continues to rise the way it does now, it could overwhelm the energy supply, potentially causing blackouts. On a national level, ERI, Friends of the Earth, An Taisce, and PBP, have all emphasised that the Irish climate targets cannot be met if the energy consumption rises in this way.
Sustainability claims by Google and Google Ireland are mainly based on the purchase of renewable energy, yet the additional greenhouse gas emissions will remain. This ensures that the plan to construct an additional data centre is both a local and national concern.
“Data centres consume a fifth of Ireland’s energy supply and more energy than all urban households combined, and the demand for energy keeps on growing.”
Arguments in favour of the construction of the third data centre emphasise its potential to improve energy efficiency, water usage, waste heat and waste management. Most of the energy that is consumed goes into cooling, so advanced cooling systems could help to substantially reduce energy consumption. Sustainable building practices such as the utilisation of brownfields, energy management and monitoring as well as recycling practices are also being discussed with the goal to lessen the environmental impact of data centres. While all these approaches are worth exploring, they will only curtail an impact which is already too high. RTE has reported that the planned data centre would indirectly cause an additional 224.25 tonnes of carbon dioxide to be
emitted yearly. With the energy and water consumption being high as it is, the focus should lie on mitigating the existing impact before even considering adding to it.
“While all these approaches are worth exploring, they will only curtail an impact which is already too high.”
As often happens, the additional energy consumed is promised to help mitigate climate change later. Articles addressing the high energy consumption of data centres often stress the necessity of developing AI and to digitalise (for which data centres are vital) to combat climate change. Google, in its official sustainability statement, stresses the effectiveness of its services – to help people reduce their carbon footprints. The stress lies again on individuals, rather than the corporation itself. The CSO data demonstrates that the lowering energy consumption by households is easily swallowed by the energy consumption of the data centres. Their services, especially through the development of AI, are promised to make it easier for others to reduce their environmental impact, for example by comparing travelling options and traffic routes, but what about the environmental impact caused through these services themselves? Google’s website merely mentions the impact that developing AI will cause while setting an additional goal to achieve net-zero emissions by 2030, mainly by fully switching to renewable energy. A bold goal, but not one that will address the problem of the rising energy consumption itself. Also,
however useful AI may prove in combating climate change, it is not the sole purpose of a data centre to train AI for this role. Data centres are used for corporate business, and redirecting the focus to the potential of AI to to accelerate climate action deflects the attention from the environmental impact caused. Justifying the vast use of resources to develop a technology that could potentially help climate action in the future is a foolhardy gamble that society simply cannot afford to take. Instead, a reduction of greenhouse gases and, in turn, of energy consumption is needed.
Google Ireland’s plan to build the third data centre was turned down recently by the South Dublin County Council on the grounds that the area’s power capacity and amount of available renewable energy were lacking. Additionally, complications with the South Dublin County Council’s development plan in relation to the protection of green infrastructure, alongside uncertainty concerning Google Ireland’s engagement with Power Purchase Agreements in Ireland, were cited as additional reasons to reject the application. For Google Ireland, the option to appeal to An Born Pleanála remains. Considering the impact on the environment and local communities the decision will come down to whether the interests of the affected communities and environmental protection will be prioritised, or the interests of the corporate sector.
Blue-ing The Liffey
The River Liffey, lifeblood of the heart of Dublin, is – regrettably – as brown as the city’s famous Guinness. Dubliners know to skip a swim in the Liffey (opt for the 40-Foot), unless you want to glow in the dark, or lose a toe to gangrene. This is the narrative and reality of the Liffey – but what if it wasn’t? Where the idea of ‘greening’ has given new language to urban environmental remediation on the ground, can we find similar momentum for the ‘blue-ing’ of our Liffey? To clean up our river, and our act? Looking to other urban waterways, we find solutions and inspiration.
Consider the Seine in Paris, another urban waterway facing similar changes as our beloved Liffey Swimming in the Seine has been illegal since 1923, its pollution levels posing a serious threat to swimmers, divers, and doggy-paddlers alike. The main source of this pollution in the Seine , and, indeed, the Liffey, is overflowing sewage and untreated wastewater which pours into the rivers during periods of heavy rainfall. The old age of sewage systems in Paris and Dublin, makes it a challenge to handle sewage and untreated wastewater, in addition to the pollution from farming, mining and transport.
RUAIDHRÍ SAULNIER
While the relatively small scale of Irelands’ heavy industry sector has meant a smaller - although non-zero - contribution of worrisome heavy metal pollutants, larger, more visible pollutants, such as plastic bottles and cans are pervasive. The Irish Nautical Trust launched a “Liffey Sweeper”, designed to catch this non-natural debris, with the plan to remove all floating debris from the Liffey, Dodder and Tolka estuary. These larger pieces of waste contribute negatively to the river’s wildlife, as choking hazards and sources of microplastics. It is expected that this cleaned up river will lead to revival of fish stocks, which have been declining for decades, and a restoration of river foliage.
“A 2022
EPA report revealed that 32 Irish towns discharge raw sewage into rivers and seas, and that only half of Ireland’s sewage was treated to EU standards in 2021, far below the EU’s average of 90%.”
That you can smell the Liffey before you see it, while partially due to the tidal nature of the Liffey, is stark evidence of its high pollution levels. To cope with
the increased Irish population and EU environmental regulations, new treatment infrastructure is needed to replace current water treatment, that dates from as early as 1906. A 2022 EPA report revealed that 32 Irish towns discharge raw sewage into rivers and seas, and that only half of Ireland’s sewage was treated to EU standards in 2021, far below the EU’s average of 90%. Ireland has failed to comply with these standards since 2005. 70% of raw sewage discharges in Ireland have now been eliminated, and several more treatment plants are planned across Ireland. In Dublin specifically, these projects come under the Greater Dublin Drainage Project.
Despite high pollution levels, and the challenges posed by an ancient sewer system in Paris, the 10K swimming marathon, triathlon and a paralympic event all subsequently took place in the Seine at the Paris 2024 Olympics this summer. To keep athletes
safe, E. coli and enterococci levels were tested by officials. These bacteria are easier for scientists to detect, and if they are present, it is highly likely that other, more elusive bacteria are also present. Exposure to these bacteria can cause gastrointestinal problems, rashes and ear infections, which would all prevent high performance athletes from performing at their peak levels.
The solution built for the Olympics is a giant rainwater storage tank, capable of holding 45,000 m^3 of rainwater, approximately 20 Olympic size pools. A tunnel then links the rainwater tank, which is located near the Austerlitz train station, to the opposite bank, sending it back into the sewer network, where it will be treated.
What can Dublin do to emulate the City of Light? Olympics in 2072? Is Ireland capable of hosting
The 74th annual Colours Boat Race on the Liffey - a glimpse of the river’s recreational potential.
Photo: Genevieve McDonnell.
interntional sporting events in the Liffey? Could Grattan Bridge be Dublin’s own Pont Alexandre III? Or maybe we can just build a leisure swimming spot for residents and visitors to enjoy? There are many qualities of the Liffey – primarily its smell and contaminants – which need improvement to put us on par with other major cities.
The Liffey is not one of Dublin’s official bathing areas, despite the hosting of swims and other events in the river, and as such, it does not feature in the EPA’s bathing water quality report. However, if we want to embrace the Liffey as the blue amenity it could be,
regular and stringent testing, with publicly-available results, must be paired with a commitment to a waste management system update for Dublin city’s dense centre.
Copenhagen, Munich and Paris have all managed to clean up their rivers, and turn them into bustling spots of activity for their citizens, with 26 new swimming pools in the Seine to be opened by 2025, and walled off from the boat traffic. A lot of work is needed to make this work, and the best time to start is now. It is time we clean up our act, our river and our Guinness.
Cover photo by Thomas Lara Leonard