Great, thanks so much Joe, and thanks to the Institute for the opportunity to I suppose give some brief reflections on the outcome of Lima from an Irish as well as from an EU perspective and also maybe to look ahead to 2015, which as Joe said is a milestone year or hopefully will be when we look back at it and a new regime on the climate side. Maybe just to outline, I'm sure some of you are probably wondering who is this kind of grey haired bearded guy sitting here kind of given that kind of the picture that was used to advertise this event kind of had a very sprightly young kind of person. This is about two weeks of negotiations in Lima last year, so grey hair and beard and I have been told by some of my staff that I shouldn't shave until we have a global agreement in December so they didn't say which year so I don't know kind of how long my beard will ultimately be, but listen I just kind of I suppose there's a very kind of a diverse but a very august kind of group here and I know there'll be as much value in listening to people's views and understanding what people think kind of has happened at Lima what actually people expect will happen over the coming kind of months and where the priorities lie so I do want to leave a fair amount of time and I won't have all the answers indeed kind of I rely kind of on experts for many of the detail kind of issues but certainly there are plenty of people who have answers or views around the table and around this room so I think kind of we will try and leave some slots at the end to have a dialogue if that's all right. I might start with some maybe some general feedback and on the outcome and I suppose to set the context for how Lima went I was there for as Joe said for the high level segment and I think by the time I got there maybe things were a little bit ropey or at the start but by the time I got there and we started the high level session there was a general willingness on the part of most parties to engage although kind of as always there's a laborious process and you end up kind of having procedural wranglings in the early days as to how best to proceed and you waste days but I think what struck me personally and having kind of attended now that's my fourth kind of cup is that for the first time I got a sense that parties were were willing to actually engage on substance they weren't just fighting about the process they were actually eager to argue their points to outline why they wanted a particular option or a piece of language and why they felt that they couldn't accept somebody else's so that was good in a way that kind of people were now kind of moving into a we need to find a solution here but equally kind of what happened was we had three full days of discussion on the co-chairs text for the ADP kind of decision the Lima kind of call to action and that text had originally been circulated as a six page document by the time we finished the three days of the initial discussion it was actually a 72 page document and kind of that's I suppose kind of part of the process but it equally kind of highlighted people that time was running out and decisions need to be taken but the fact that people were kind of saying we like this but we don't like that it kind of it felt that there was a slightly different dynamic in the room I don't think we'll ever kind of come to a stage where all 193 countries will say this is great we all agree on this but I think there was a kind of a certain kind of within certain sectors and certain kind of blocks certainly a bit more of a proactive kind of feel and I think that kind of what we have at the end of the call for climate action is an interesting kind of document it's kind of it does I suppose it does present a compromise view across the range of desires and wishes but it also outlines particularly some key kind of details on the process and the elements of what we do need to do during the early part of 2013 and indeed how we're going to get ultimately to Paris at the end of November and early December it is I suppose the decision itself is a mix of the bottom-up approach where kind of we have these INDCs and these intended nationally determined contributions which would be I suppose nationally proposed but then having some form of collective assessment or analysis or indeed consideration to to try and kind of balance I suppose to to compare the apples and oranges that are presented in a way that can assess are we collectively doing enough or not to to mitigate and to turn the tide on the the climate kind of overheating but I think equally what we've come away with and I think the the coverage and indeed kind of use of various parties in the media we still flag that there's a huge number of kind of key issues that need to be addressed in terms of the legal status of the agreement itself and obviously the EU and and some of the more progressive countries are looking for a legally binding document that actually has I suppose full legal force whereas other countries say the US and maybe Australia we'll be looking at more looser agreements that you would have voluntary elements that you could kind of deal with that in the US case wouldn't require them going to the Senate to basically get a legal resolution then you have issues around the scale of the of the peer review itself how much kind of countries are willing to offer up their their targets or their draft targets as kind of as fodder for countries to pick apart and saying are you doing enough are you not doing enough and this is maybe where the developing countries like China like India indeed like kind of Russia and some of the larger kind of ones would be concerned that they're ceding some of their their national sovereignty and also I suppose linked to the whole issue of peer review is how you deal with the issue of common accounting and the fact that if you are kind of bringing so many different elements of targets and objectives whether they're kind of base years or kind of a national kind of targets or kind of scale down how do you compare them and are we all working to the same so we understand that we're doing more we're doing less or that we can do more and that's an issue that I suppose is still to be resolved even in principle if we don't get into the detail by Paris and then the last issue may be more for developing countries was very much around the issue of the links between finance and the development and accepting targets and actions from themselves and obviously kind of not only is it that they will only do kind of some of their works if they feel that there is kind of sufficient support whether it's financial or technical or capacity-building support but equally that finance contributions from developed countries needs to be part of their national or their kind of international targets so there I suppose kind of why we do get an agreement out of out of Lima there are a huge number of issues that I suppose have been kicked down to further discussions and you know there's a huge amount of work that needs to be done kind of starting with the next session in February in Geneva I think you know time is always a kind of a essence in terms of trying to to get through all the work and one of the pieces of work that we only really had a chance to have one read through and it was annexed to the Lima decision was this elements of a draft negotiating text and a bit like the previous document that that grew from a six-page or 270 pages this draft kind of includes a whole list of options you know and many of them at the polar ends of the spectrum and you know if we had an extra week we may or may not have had a chance to resolve them but I think even getting an agreed decision and deferring some of those issues but recognising that this document is at least a useful starting point if it's accepted by all parties in February to move ahead and start working out what will actually be in this final agreement at the end of the year and that actually kind of is I suppose a major task and the proof will be in the pudding as to whether that work begins in earnest or whether we go back to procedural wrangling for the first few days of the Geneva conference I think there's general kind of views and certainly the EU and Minister of Rights and myself we were very very impressed with the Lima the co-president himself minister for the environment Manuel Pulgar Vidao who kind of has a I suppose a very personal interest in it and that he was an he is an environmental lawyer he actually attended the the Rio conference back in 1992 as an NGO so he's been involved for 20 odd years in kind of in kind of in different aspects of the environment and you could see from his engagement that number one he was very committed to a decision but number two he understood a lot of the issues and it was nice to I suppose to see the difference from the previous cop presidency where or presidencies where you might have had maybe more national or particular interests that were overriding kind of consensus decision and I think that certainly in the in the final final day and hours of the of the conference his role was critical in bringing some of the parties together and finding a compromise equally the work by the two co-chairs it was the EU Commission person Artur Rungermetze and the Trinidad and Tobago kind of represented from Gulak Kishan Kumar Singh they were finishing their this was their last event and they'd been guiding this process for 18 months and you know they kind of piloted very choppy waters and kind of tough days particularly in the early kind of a part of both the bond session back in June and indeed the first week here but they came out with a very good kind of a conclusion and handed over there handed over the reins of the of the ADP for the final year to the American delegate now Daniel Rechneider a Rechneider and and the delegate from Algeria representing the Africa group whose name is Ahmed Jokaf. I haven't heard that one off yet but I'm sure we'll have to kind of address the co-chair kind of at future at future sessions that's a big job and I suppose the EU itself was quite was was kind of quite realistic and recognising that as cop presidency kind of there will be actually in France you know it's not appropriate for the EU to actually have the the co-chairing role in the run-up to the the conference but there's hope that you know given the precedent of both the the outgoing co-chairs and indeed the previous co-chairs who did a very good job they've been able to leave behind their national and maybe they're kind of their regional interests in the in the interest of a bring kind of all the parties together so the bar set pretty high for these two new co-chairs but we shall see how they how they get on and their first job will of course be in a few weeks time from the Irish delegation we kind of the department leads on the climate change and coordinates but we rely on a huge number of people around around the system from kind of both agencies and central departments so we had kind of colleagues from agriculture from the EPA from Irish aid and indeed from the Department of Finance who were actually on the ground in Lima and we had a huge number of others who were on hand to feedback comments and I suppose it's kind of a maybe just a chance for me to and the department to acknowledge the the great work and the commitment that is is given by all these agencies that offer up kind of two and a half weeks of their time plus all the preparation in terms of contributing their expertise to a fairly kind of tiring and laborious process oftentimes but I think it certainly has helped that building on the work we had during our EU presidency where we had some very kind of a central role in the negotiations and in some of the brokering of deals we've tried to maintain that and have kept kind of quite a few I suppose important coordinating roles both within the EU and indeed in some of the sidebar discussions as co-chairs and co-facilitators so I think that it's just maybe just take the opportunity to acknowledge that that great work and to make sure that they keep it up for the next 12 months or we'll all be left kind of holding kind of our hands and nothing in them and I think as well kind of you probably are aware that Minister White very ably deputized for for Minister Kelly who I think had more pressing domestic matters to manage during December but I I know from from talking to Minister White and indeed to a staff that he found it very very useful and it was particularly strategic in the context of his own department's work on their their green paper and energy which is obviously kind of being kind of advanced now and we're moving into the towards the white paper stage and I think you know not only from an energy perspective but he understanding the international context I think oftentimes on one of the values of having a kind of a climate brief is that you're not just kind of dealing with the national side or with the EU but you actually have the international context I think that's something that that Minister White will take to heart when he is kind of looking at his own kind of department's role not only within the climate side but looking at kind of the energy portfolio that he has so I think we'll kind of will certainly look to maintain that kind of that engagement and and building it in 2015 maybe just before I get into the detail just the mood leaving kind of Lima kind of where people happy where they're not happy it really depends on your perspective you a glass half full a glass half empty I think certainly the the signs of a successful kind of outcome to a conference is that nobody is happy entirely but I think from the maybe from the EU perspective I think that there was I suppose a sense that you know some progress was made not as much as we would have liked and with not as much detail as we would have liked but at the same time we did get a decision which was looking kind of highly unlikely in the maybe 18 hours to go before the the end of the of the of the conference and there's enough there for us to actually build on the work that needs to happen now in the in the early part of 2015 but fully kind of recognize that you know you're looking at kind of other aspects that that didn't really deliver kind of to the full extent and I think that kind of you know people can all point to three or four things that they would like to see either in the in the process or on the on the worksheet for for early 2015 maybe kind of I don't know whether it's kind of one outcome from the from the conference and the and the decision and you can look at it as a good or bad kind of outcome is that Lima with all its kind of momentum so you had kind of the UN Secretary General Summit you had the UN US-China Conference and Dayton in November you had the EU's 2030 kind of headline decisions and with I suppose a very kind of experienced and a very proactive co-president we still barely got over the line and I think people were going back with maybe a heightened realism about what is going to be achieved in Paris and and what can be achieved in Paris and I think it does pose quite a few very tricky questions which I don't have the answers to and indeed kind of I'm sure there'll be kind of part of the debate between now and December is that really kind of what do we actually expect out of Paris do we do we want or do we kind of would we be happier with a weak deal that all parties sign up to or a strong deal that some parties reject and therefore stay out of the process how do we deal with the issues and the likely the very likely shortfall between what parties are prepared to actually contribute as their as their target towards kind of a global greenhouse gas reductions and what we know from the science is actually needed how do we deal with that and then the other challenge is given that we are looking to agree a decision in 2015 that will only have legal effect from 2020 what are the risks of locking in low-ambition now kind of till 2025 or 2030 and I suppose these are all issues that we're aware of and indeed will kind of probably further emerge during the year but I think you know at a national and either the new level these are kind of our issues that are likely to come back to the fore kind of both at ministeria as well as official level and as I said you know people may have views you're kind of around the table here and maybe kind of that welcome any kind of views and those I think kind of maybe looking at I have talked about the EU perspective and I mentioned to Joe and and to Tom before that it was the first time I was actually at a cop where the EU seriously considered walking away from a decision and saying we're not going to accept this there was I suppose the EU is traditionally seen as the the party that kind of goes out there and says we can do whatever and pushes everybody and yet concedes on a number of key issues and I suppose we were getting to a point where there was a risk that the decision text we've come back with from Lima would actually be so restrictive or so kind of or so weak that in fact would be better off having no decision from Lima and actually kind of pushing ahead rather than locking yourselves into something and maybe just to give you an example one of the issues that was potentially on the table was that parties would put forward their proposed INDCs between June and you know towards the end of the year but we wouldn't have any analysis or kind of discussion on them until 2016 which would mean would be signing up to an agreement in Paris without any chance to actually kind of articulate and have a rational discussion on how we account for them how we kind of assess them and that was a red line to the EU and kind of a we gave very strong instructions to both our lead negotiators and indeed to to Commissioner Kenyette that you know that was something that we just could not count on from an environmental as well as from a from a policy perspective and I think the other I suppose big issue was I think looking at kind of you know what level of detail and what would be kind of included or not at the end of the day I think as I said we can work with with the decision we have but you know there are huge number of risks throughout the the process and throughout kind of all these milestones for parties if they don't want to step up and don't step up quick enough you know we would be left kind of scrambling towards the end and you know more than once during the conference people talked about another Copenhagen and another kind of another kind of so can we learn the lessons can we kind of at least try and front load what we're kind of doing in terms of other blocks and maybe kind of I'm sure you probably kind of seen different media coverage and indeed kind of different reports back from from different areas on the China and the US obviously they're huge players and will be the kind of the key players in kind of any final decision some of the the good feeling that they had from their November Dayton I think was dampened and you know I'm not saying that they kind of actively kind of retrenched themselves but I think that you know they kind of they realized that what they thought was a great thing for themselves people started to pick holes and ask questions and they didn't really have the answers but the fact that they're still at the table and I suppose they're still signaled that this is an important issue nationally as well as internationally for them is an important kind of consideration South Africa and Brazil I suppose as part of the the basic group you know they were I think there's a sense they're a bit more cooperative than previously and perhaps that was partly because Brazil had the continental link and didn't want to be kind of overly scupering their their Peruvian hosts but equally I think they were looking at solutions and the Brazilian concept of this concentric circles of people moving moving into the circle and committing to more as their resources and capacity allows and indeed South Africa is looking to broker deals you know I think that was actually a strong signal and maybe there's a little bit of a broken link between the basic countries so Indian China are kind of a bit more kind of isolated where South Africa and Brazil are kind of there was no statements that I heard that actually included kind of basic statements so it was just a interesting geopolitical kind of observation to make one group that did actually come to the fore was this group called the like-minded group now if anybody can actually kind of put a number or kind of list every single country that tends to hop in and out of the group they'll be doing very well they can range from between 24 and 40 45 countries but they're generally countries developing developing countries that would be very much protective of the firewall very much kind of pushing for developed countries to take kind of a huge amount of action and commit significant resources before developing countries can be expected to to take action and they certainly flex their muscles they used the g77 discord and I suppose the lack of coordination to maybe fill that gap so sometimes you'd have China in there sometimes you'd have India and you know but they wouldn't obviously list that they've stopped listing who the countries are so it's even it's even more difficult to work out who they're speaking on behalf of but Malaysia is actually their spokesman at the moment and he's a very seasoned political kind of and indeed kind of a diplomatic campaigner and he was he was ruining the fact that he was missing his flight in the last hours to a very kind of expensive trip to Machu Pichu and he was sitting in the conference room kind of looking for a solution but telling everyone how much he was missing kind of his fun times but he was willing to do it for the sake of the planet but actually I think one of the things that might have kind of a slightly irked and a number of other developing countries but they tried to take a lot of the credit both from the top presidency and indeed from the likes of Aeosis and the LDCs about what they were delivering and what they were leveraging from developed countries now as to what that kind of means as we move into 2015 but just I think one of his final statements was that it was great that this Lima decision finally brought all the developing countries back into the one-fold now kind of I think that was more wishful thinking from his part but it's just a signal that they see this as kind of safety in numbers keep everybody kind of keep the divide between developed and developing countries because I think as we get closer to Paris there's a recognition that the least developed countries certainly Aeosis the associate of Latin American states there'll be a block that will be emerging from the developing countries they've been looking for a deal and the EU will obviously be kind of trying to I suppose further further develop those relations so that we don't have this very clear developed versus developing country fight when it comes to Paris and then just at the last group I suppose Africa kind of the LDCs were very much to the fore very strong I suppose an early action again highlighting the kind of the one and a half degree goal rather than the two degree goal climate finance was a huge issue and also I think you know I think there's a huge impetus there and a huge requirement for you to look very very closely at what we can do to assist them because as most you know most of Aeosis members and the LDCs are at the cold face and they're actually feeling the heat of climate change and the impacts right now and you know kind of I suppose that there's a there's a moral onus as well as a political onus on us to look at how we can assist them in also framing kind of an agreement that actually has has not only legally binding force but actually has a clear effect in mitigating and adapting to climate change I don't know whether we want to go into kind of a huge amount of the detail on on the decisions itself but I think that there was I suppose a few issues that I might just highlight and we can go into if people kind of want to go into the detail I have I have some kind of have the decision here and we can kind of we can parse the the language but I think a few things just in terms of the compromises there was a reference in the last hours kind of inserted about adaptation and trying to actually put the balance most of the targets that were being kind of I suppose described as national kind of INDCs was very much on the mitigation side and I think recognizing the key pressures that the developing countries were feeling that they wanted to adaptation listed as a key consideration so that when you're putting forward your INDC it doesn't isn't solely about or doesn't have to be solely about reducing the amount of your emissions but can be a combination of reducing your emissions but also kind of taking steps and investing to actually mitigate to to adapt to kind of what are kind of like the impacts of climate change in the future years and that was actually I think something that we recognize the question is how it'll actually kind of be accounted for and that's maybe the back to the issue of the having the MRV and accounting rules there was also a kind of a clear push from AOSIS to look at loss and damage and to give a reference now it's actually included in the preambular kind of paragraphs to the decision and is very much in the context of the Warsaw International Mechanism so you know a number of countries were very eager to kind of to tie in loss and damage which you know basically means compensation for for for kind of impacts of climate change into the actual new agreement but it was its reference in the decision but very much so in the context of the work that's already there the structures that are in place and then maybe the most significant concession that was secured by developing countries and a few others was a reference the explicit reference to this life of phrase common but differentiated principles and respective capabilities the CBD or RC has been a principle of the convention from from back in the day and the fact that we actually kind of cited it as a particular element within albeit the preambular kind of a piece of the of the of the decision it's actually a significant that this pretty much kind of recognizes that countries have different responsibilities and therefore need to take different steps but how it's interpreted is is that there's a firewall so you go back to 1992 and you say well there's so many countries who are developed a small number whatever it is 47 48 and then the rest of them are all developing countries and they're never never the twain shall meet the difficulty is 20 22 25 years ago you could argue that China and Brazil and you know a lot of countries were kind of certainly in that state but now they're going to their global kind of economic powerhouses and more importantly their global emitters and how do you actually kind of get there kind of their mindset to change and how kind of we reflected in the in the decision was we actually use some language that had been agreed previously by China and the US which probably represent the the polls of the spectrum in terms of what they're looking for and the the qualifying language we used was referencing CBD or a kind of RC but in light of different national circumstances and I think from a purely legal perspective there is a sense and you can argue this kind of a in court or whatever but kind of a politically there's a sense that actually allows for I suppose a more nuanced approach to maybe have countries kind of saying well you know as things change maybe we need to change so and this whole issue of differentiation so that was a concession that was kind of given in the final hours and you know I know some parties like the US and Australia felt it was a concession that was given far too soon but kind of in terms of actually getting a decision the issue of CBD or an RC was going to be on the table anyway it's I don't think it's going to make a huge difference whether it's it's cited in decision or whether it's kind of used and cited from the principles of the convention itself and just one kind of one last thing about the the kind of what the EU was looking for and what it might might not have got there was a paragraph is paragraph 14 of the decision and it talks about this upfront information what information will countries actually give when they're presenting their IDC INDCs and a little bit more detail was actually inserted in that which was helpful from from an EU perspective it basically allows for a longer list of items that needs to be I suppose considered and and added to as you're kind of producing your INDC and there was a there was an inclusion of one word called quantifiable which wasn't there before and which I think would help to make the aggregate kind of accounting a little bit easier because you're going to put a figure at the end of it or at least be able to kind of turn a principle into what this might mean but one of the things that did drop from the final decision was we had planned or we had hoped in the middle of the year that there'd be a process whether we call it a meeting or whether we call it just one of the part of the sessions we had where we would have a dialogue with countries that have put forward their targets and allow other countries to say well why did you do that or kind of is that all you can do or what's that going to deliver that kind of dialogue which was supposed to be constructive dialogue it suddenly became non-invasive and you know kind of you know the most bland kind of descriptions you could you could imagine and you know the fact that we'd have a session where you wouldn't be kind of allowed to ask any hard questions kind of we said well at least we have a session and then they decided that they were going to move that to 2016 so we're going to have this discussion to 2016 and the EU decided that you know that was a step too far and we'd rather actually remove any reference to this this session because in reality we all know that as soon as people put them out there that the analysis that will be done and there will be a dialogue whether it's in a formal session or whether it's just bilaterals so we didn't want to have any restrictions on what kind of a could be discussed or how it could be discussed during 2016 itself and the other kind of maybe slight nuance was that there was going to be from the secretariat what they kind of called a technical paper that was just compiling them so basically all these INDCs you basically put them all into one document and circulated everybody but that has now been upgraded to a synthesis report on the aggregate effects of the INDCs so a little bit more analysis and an attempt to to try and kind of convert the apples and oranges into collective fruit so to speak now the danger is that that actually document is not due until November which leaves it very very late but they'll be as I said there'll be a lot of dialogue between kind of I suppose June and November anyway so I suspect that you know kind of that that report will just enhance the discussion we're already having in throughout the year and in terms of and before I kind of just I suppose leave and I'm conscious I want to leave as much time as possible there were obviously a huge amount of other things that were happening kind of these cops kind of they tend to focus on the the highly political issues but there was a significant amount of work done in relation to presentation of what we called kind of them are multilateral assessments so countries actually including the EU and a number of member states presented to the cop and of what they're doing in terms of their biennial reporting what what measures are taking and policies they're they're delivering and that was actually I suppose a very useful exercise to demonstrate to other countries that M or V is actually useful that you can actually report you can measure you can verify and then you can kind of I suppose argue kind of why your policies are working or not and Ireland actually just like Ireland will be actually making its presentation at the the forthcoming June session in Milan under the SPI kind of heading there was also obviously a recognition of the science and the fifth assessment report and that was very much kind of I suppose fully recognized and included in a lot of the discussions so and indeed through the structured expert dialogue which which dealt with the issues but I think as we get closer and closer to Paris I think people are arguing less about the science and more about what's practical and what's reasonable and affordable which I suppose is one is one kind of a facet to the to the battle that kind of we might be kind of a at least kind of able to take a bit of a breather from as long as we don't lose sight of what are the ultimate scientific and and requirements to deliver on the and the actions and obviously finance is another issue there was quite a few acknowledgments of the the kind of contributions pledged to the Green Climate Fund and in the end actually I think just over 10.2 billion US dollars was was pledged both in advance of enduring the conference itself as Minister White kind of indicated in his address the plenary Ireland along with a number of other countries were unable to actually kind of contribute or make their pledge at the conference itself but kind of in terms of a future climate finance we we do expect to be able to have matched our fast-art finance kind of from from previous years and indeed in 2013 I think we kind of we spent about 34 million in 100% generally adaptation grants to least developed countries and our program countries we hope to match that in 2014 and indeed kind of the government not only kind of Minister quiet and myself but indeed the entire government is looking at how to actually I suppose look at all options for for mobilizing and scaling up climate finance including to the GCF itself a kind of I've other bits and pieces there but I kind of we can I'm sure we can catch those in in our discussion I suppose just a flag where we go next in milestones most of you are probably aware of the the key steps there are kind of on the 8th to the 13th of February there's a week-long session focused solely on the ADP and the negotiations for the 2015 agreement in Geneva we have our annual summer jaunt to to bond where we kind of spent kind of two weeks and hopefully we'll kind of we'll get beyond kind of procedural kind of fights and get stuck into the clear work that's needed and then kind of we have the cop kind of starting in the 20 the 30th of November in Paris I think based in Le Bourget at the airport I had actually some initial discussions with the French delegation at at Lima and indeed kind of met further with with the ambassador since I came back here they're obviously very eager to mobilize they are reluctant to signal any kind of additional sessions because as soon as you signal an additional session nobody does any work at the previous sessions so I think that they they do intend to try and kind of as far as possible keep to those three weeks those through those those three sessions but they also recognize that kind of as needs must they want to try and build momentum and I think certainly learning from this year's event where you had Ban Ki-moon kind of bringing in heads of state I wouldn't be surprised if you know with the year that's in it we have another kind of similar model baby maybe based around the SDG kind of a culmination of the process at the end of September in New York so there's a huge amount of work to be done but hopefully that gives you a flavor from the the ground forces so to speak but happy to take any questions but equally I'd be very interested to hear views from from yourselves as to what was the perspective


And outside Africa, an international donors conference in Warsaw, Poland collecting funds for Ukraine raised around 6.5 billion dollars. That's according to Poland's Prime Minister, Mantez Morawieski. The conference aimed at helping Ukraine deal with the economic and humanitarian fallout of Russia's invasion was hosted by Poland and Sweden. Incorporation with the President of the European Commission and the European Council. Morawieski also raised the issue that Ukraine be giving candidate status to join the European Union as soon as possible in order to maintain their fighting spirit and their morale. On this conference, we were able to gather more than 6 billion euro and this money will be, this patch will be distributed to support Ukraine and all those who support Ukraine because we know how painfully and how costly it is for the Ukrainian nation. And we have succeeded in bringing actors together that want to support Ukraine with immediate humanitarian response and reconstruction both in the long short and the long term. And the money that we have raised today is desperately needed for men and women, for children and elderly who see their lives, their homes and their families torn apart by Russia's brutal war. And I'm happy to say that we have seemed to far surpassed our expectations for today's pledging, so this is a fantastic result of this conference. Here together with our international friends we are working to support you, but of course the big topic is the reconstruction of Ukraine, hundreds of billions of euros. And here too with the lead of Ukraine we are willing to give the utmost and to work as closely together with you. Our dream is that we start as soon as possible with investment and reform so that this work will pave the way for Ukraine into the European Union. Since the start of the full scale war our state has received more than 12 billion US dollars of support in arms and finances. And we are very grateful for this crucial help. We are currently going through the most difficult stage of our history when the fate of our state is being decided. Let's talk about fresh news updates.


Well, kids dream of playing in the World Series. That's what the winner of the Midwest Plains, regional 12 view, gets to do. Eight teams duke it out on the diamonds next three days. Northern Heat opening up this afternoon. They draw a pioneer out of Colorado and game one and Ben Karate starts it off at the bank. First, ending drills won the right. This one probably hasn't landed yet. Three run shot, four nothing, but midge. Still not done though in the frame. Thailand Dean missing just by a couple of feet, but good for an RBI double lead is now five. The base is loaded in the fifth for Christian Hagley and he'll bring them all home. Find some grass and right ends up at third and three ribbies, Northern Heat by 10. They would score 14 runs in the opener, 14-two of the winner. They play tomorrow at 10 and also three. If you've enjoyed this segment of Lakeland News, please consider making a tax deductible contribution to Lakeland Public Television.


PDP National Chairman Iochai Yu reacts to recent suspension by party ex-coach saying it is an exercise in futility, even as the governor of River Stadia's of weekly back suspension, saying are you contributed to the PDP's loss and just concluded elections? Tonight we'll discuss the PDP crisis which is lingering even after the 2023 presidential and governorship elections. This is Plot Politics, my name is Nyangu Hakeiji. The National Chairman of the People's Democratic Party Iochai Yu has dismissed his proponent suspension by a section of his ward executive over alleged anti-party activities as the handy work of some desperate ignorant gamblers who lack basic understanding of the PDP constitution. The National Chairman of the People's Democratic Party PDP Dr. Iochai Yu was suspended by the executive for alleged anti-party activities. The suspension of Dr. Iyuu was affected by the ward executive of the party in Iguarov ward of Boko Loko government area, Benware State. Meanwhile, Governor Yesom Wike of River State has said he is in support of the suspension of the National Chairman of the People's Democratic Party PDP Iochai Yu. Wike stated that Iyuu played a major role in the colossal failure of the PDP in 2023 general elections. Joining us to discuss this is, later on we will be joined by Chidi Lloyd, Chairman of the Imoha local government area of River State. But right now we have on standby Osse and Nene, a chieftain of the People's Democratic Party. Thank you Osse for joining us on the program. Yeah, glad to be here as always. Okay, well PDP is now becoming synonymous with crisis. Before the election there was crisis, even though the party was denying it, that there was no crisis and they were going into the election as one undivided house. Right now after the election and what the governor of River State is calling a colossal failure, there still seem to be another crisis wherein the National Chairman has been suspended. Would you like to get your comments on that first of all before we move on? I think if you have a headache and you don't treat it or you don't treat the source of a problem, it's no surprise if the problem persists. We have some people within the party who have unfortunately decided to play almost like an antagonistic role and that wasn't treated before the elections, that persisted during the elections and that's what we're seeing play out today. Okay, well before we go on, let's just take a listen to what the governor of River State said and when we return there are other issues that we need to look at. For instance, what the constitution says or what the PDP believes should be the steps to take before someone can be suspended because there are so many things coming from this case that we are handling today. So let's listen to the governor of River State and his comments on the suspension. Not only did he take a distant tour in the presidential election in your state, he also lost the state as far as governorship election. And they know the antics of Iowa. You know, if you know Iowa very well, he has told us before now that he's very close to the president-elect Ben Aswajib Bonatteribu. He also claims that he's very close to the presidential candidate of Pilipe.  He said that? Yes. That didn't tell me that he never said so. Is it wrong to be close to both of them? You don't know what the point I'm making. The point is that, who is that attached to? If this person wins, it's okay. If this person wins, it's okay. How can somebody be the leader of the party? Are you behind the suspension? I'm in support of the suspension. In fact, if you had left before now, they would have said he left and that would wipe the Pilipe election. But thank God, he presided over the close-up failure of the party. And so staying there doesn't make sense again. You have to look for a way how the party can be rebuilt. And that is the tutorial matter. Okay, we are hearing like the voice of the G5. That's what I'd like to say because Wike was leading the G5. The governors who said that whatever IU was doing was wrong, unconstitutional and all. But we don't know what the constitution of the PDP actually says. For instance, people from the world of Iochua IU have suspended Iochua IU. He came out to say it's an exercise in futility. Even though right now the court, the High Court in Benway State has barred him from parading himself as the national chairman of the PDP. What does the constitution of the PDP actually say about how or the steps that need to be taken before someone can be suspended from the party? Thank you very much. I always like giving a historical background of things so people understand the journey and where we are today. The PDP, when it was formed in 1998, I never tell, saying it was formed in the backdrop of the military. Abacha had just died. They're the Trump government. So very quickly, a set of individuals, the G34 at the time, formed the core of a party that eventually became the PDP. And so we had a constitution from, you know, written at that time. There was literally just a ticket, a transitionary ticket from military rule to civilian rule. It was what allowed us to conduct our congresses and it was a very imperfect document. I have every single copy of every single amendment we have made in that time. I have three of them here. I have the 2001 amendment, I think, if I can find it. This was it. And what was interesting about this 2001 amendment is that it sort of introduced the idea that the BOT chairman will be reserved for the president. At the time, remember, Abas and Joe had tried his third term bid. It wasn't successful. And so this amendment was almost like a soft landing for him. They reserved the chairmanship of the BOT to former presidents. Then from 4 to 2014, we have the 2012 amendments. That's this document here. And President Jonathan was moving up against the governor at the time who wanted him to hold on to the purported agreement he had that he would only run one term in 2011. And so with Bamanga took out the then national chairman. They introduced into the national executive committee of the party, the NEC. Not just the governors and former heads of state. It was also senators and House of Rep members. They expanded the NEC so that the governors wouldn't have such a strong chokehold over the party. Which brings me to the most recent amendment we have, which is this amendment. It's the secondous amendment. And what is interesting about this one, because we had instances where party chairman would be removed and then a new party chairman from another zone would assume a leadership of the party. This amendment says introduce what we call two deputy national chairman. So you have deputy national chairman not and deputy national chairman south. So whoever the national chairman is, if he's removed, it would be the deputy national chairman from his zone. It is not a south that replaces him. And that sort of was supposed to cure that loss of representation if the national chairman is removed. But I spoke very quickly about three different manifesto I think I showed you just now. Every single one of them has one thing in particular, two things in common. They penalize anti-party activities and they define it. So if I go to the most recent amendment, anti-party says that the penalty saying is 12-6. No member of the party shall align with any other party or group so undermine the party or any of his elected governments. That's one clause. But more important and I think more relevant to your question, it talks about how you discipline members of NWC, how you discipline members of NEC, how you discipline the leadership of the party at the national level. One thing politicians will always do is protect their interests. So every single copy of the constitution as amended has this interesting clause and I read it to you. It says this is now the most recent one, 57-7. Notwithstanding any other provision relating to discipline, no executive committee at any level except the national executive committee shall entertain any question of discipline as may relate or concern a member of the national executive committee, deputy governors or members of the national assembly. So to answer your question straightforward, can people at the world level wake up in the middle of the night and get a few members to add their signatures to a document purporting to remove or suspend the national chairman? This constitution that I've just read is a publicly available document. It says you cannot do that. The problem is that I talked about people in the party who sort of act in an antagonistic role. The problem is that there are people in the party who do not care about the constitution, who do not appear to care about the rule of law. Because if you recall, this has happened before. This was the same thing that happened in 2021, I think, with our chairman at the time, Sekondus, where again in reverse states, some people at the world level claimed to have removed him and then in quick fire succession, a court injunction, the next party injunction was procured that again restrained him from parodying himself, and that's the language that he used, parodying himself as a national chairman. And it's illegal, it's unconstitutional, but it's a distraction because once you procure court judgment, that then becomes law.  But what rose out of the 2021 episode in August was that in a week, three expert injunctions were procured, were obtained. One restrained the chairman from presenting himself as a national chairman for reverse. A few days later, another one I think was gotten from Kirby that vacated that first injunction and then another one was gotten maybe from Kando, I think he was, that again restrained the national chairman to Kondo from presenting himself as chairman. And one of the things that the former chief judge of Nigeria did at the time was that he took a very tanko, he took a very hard stance against these procurements of expert emotions and injunctions and foreign forum shopping. And those three judges were actively sanctioned by the judiciary. So it's sort of disappointing that two years later we are seeing these same actors come out and roll out the same script and the judiciary is allowing itself to be complicit in a theatrical stage that really is a road to nowhere. So to answer your question, our constitution doesn't support these actions, but they have backed an illegality with an expert injunction procured from a client judge. Okay, we've been joined by Chidi Lloyd right now, but just before we go to him, I'd just like to get some clarification. You've talked about the fact that even the state ESCO can initiate any disciplinary action on a member of the National Working Committee. Okay, that is understandable. But what steps should be taken to discipline a member of the National Working Committee who is not doing what he's supposed to do at the work level? For instance, if the allegations leveled against the EU at the work level are true, what can be done about that? Will the ESCO just sit and fold its arms and start complaining to the National Working Committee what can they do to be proactive enough to make sure that it doesn't happen? Some of the allegations that they said were that EU does not pay dues at the work level. He's a member of the National Working Committee. They also said that his aides voted against the PDP in his ward. They also said that EU did not even vote in the last election and he lost his ward. So if these things were true, they are very weighty allegations, what is the National Working Committee supposed to do? What is the what ESCO supposed to do at that moment?  What disciplinary actions should be taken by the National Working Committee? Again, I need to stress this point that as a society we have to be governed by laws and we have to respect our laws whether we agree with them or not. And you ask the question that again I just need to refer you to a constitution because it does answer that question. It says nothing in this constitution shall preclude or invalidate any complaints submitted through the National Working Committee to the National Executive Committee concerning any person or any official whatsoever. So there's a process for addressing those grievances embedded and coded in this constitution. I think what has just happened like I said is most of these people know this constitution by heart. Most of them have members of this party since its inception in 1998. This is like I said just a distraction. It just is to just continue and attempt to continue to like you said so trouble within the party and keep us from really really addressing the things we need to do. But it's curious to me because you kept on referencing Governor Wike. Here Governor Wike talk about supporting the suspension of IU because IU works for Tinibu. When Governor Wike and his co-travelers have come out publicly to say they are proud that they work for the Tinibu presidency. They are proud that they work for OB. They have come out to proclaim this so I don't understand the sort of dissonance either they are supporting working against the party or they are not. And regardless of their feelings they cannot take the laws into their own hands. We have a constitution and I think they need to abide by I'm a member of a group we just formed called the Leadership League and it's a collection of young members of the party who are truly tired of coming on these types of spaces to make apologies for the bad behaviour of our leaders and I think it's time we start speaking through to these leaders and maybe start putting forward a new breed of leadership that is more reflective of the aspirations of Nigerians. I don't think they have learned the lessons of the just concluded elections. I don't think they are aware that Nigerians are tired of this style of opposition or tired of this farcical drama that will come out to play almost every day on national television. I think Nigerians deserve better and we are hoping to provide better for Nigerians. Okay, thank you very much. Like I did say, we have been joined by Chidi Lloyd, Chairman of the Moha Local Government Area of River State. Good evening Honourable thank you for joining us. Hello Mr. Lloyd, can you hear me? Okay, it seems he cannot hear me and as soon as he is able to join us fully we will bring him back on. So let me come back to you you touched on some things that were supposed to be my next question and that is the fact that someone like Wike, Governor Wike of River State has clearly told us that he worked for the opposition in some quarters. The Governor of Ben Westid also clearly worked for the opposition even if he didn't work for the opposition that's the word you used when you were talking about your constitution he aligned with the opposition because he said he loved for instance the Labour Party Presidential candidate so much so that he doesn't even mind or didn't even mind losing his territorial ambition for him and we are wondering why Iochayu is working anti-party when the people who have publicly proclaimed have not been suspended as well why is Wike not even invited why is Wike not facing the disciplinary committee as it were why is Iochayu just referred to the disciplinary committee and then Anyim Paisa Anyim has been suspended and some other people so what is going on in the PDP do we have selective discipline in the PDP? That's a brilliant question and that's one of the grounds I have and the leadership league have with the current end of youth there seems to be a selective application of justice with regards to disciplining airing leaders who clearly come out on national television to say that they are working against the party and will continue to work against the party's interest people like Anyim like you said who came out to justify why he worked against the party in the states people like Paisa Iochayu who came out to say he is with Inubu and he is with San Wulu and he has no no regards I think there should be a question of integrity for the integrity group if you do not agree with an organization or the leadership of an organization and you cannot find legal ways to change it the honorable thing to do is to resign as a step away to distance yourself from that organization it's not to stay in as a more and as a saboteur and be acting in this honorable manner it's not something I would do if I have a problem in the party and I disagreed with it fundamentally I would walk away but specifically to Governor Wicked and I think why he hasn't been sanctioned is because I think he realized the gravity of his offences and he went to get an injunction restraining the party from suspending or disciplining him and Governor Autumn I think did the same thing and some of the other people who have been suspended like Paisa Iochayu and Ayim did not get caught caught order restraining the party from disciplining them so I see a lot of bravado and block down television and I think if you think the party is truly powerless to censor your discipline you then set the court orders aside and let's see whether the party is truly toothless but personally I think the more honorable path to take instead of conflict is to just step away from the party hold your head up higher walk into APC or labor parties and act like headquarters and join them as a member that to me is more honorable than the shenanigans currently playing out within the party okay I think JD Lloyd has joined us now Mr Lloyd good evening welcome to plus politics hello Mr Lloyd yeah okay we couldn't get you first of all but now I'm glad that we can get you now welcome to plus politics thank you we're discussing what is happening in the PDP how the word exgo expelled or suspended the national chairman the national chairman is also saying that's an exercise in futility the high court in Benway has said that he should not parade himself anymore as the national chairman of the PDP and then there is the constitution of the PDP saying that nobody can discipline him because he belongs to the national working committee and so many things are happening in the PDP we saw this before the election and it seems to be a deja vu and like the governor of river state said because of these problems there was a monumental failure of the party that's how he described it I don't know how much better it would have been but what does this say about the PDP is the PDP a party without laws or the PDP is just a party that is dying well thank you very much for this and I'd like to first say that the PDP is greater than any individual be it national chairman deputy national chairman or governor of any states because the PDP has the constitution that governs the conduct of his members and of course this constitution of the party flows from the constitution of the federal republic of Nigeria which is the ground norm and the source of every other constitution or laws in the country when you look at what is going on for instance in Benway states where the world escrow has suspended the national chairman that is the right way to go I'm not looking at the the merits the events that led to that it's only the Benway people like the world escrow that can speak to that he was accused of not being able to deliver his unit and I've asked my friends what does unit mean a pulley unit is that unit that is in front of your house or probably at the primary school in your community not in any other community a politician of that rank should be able to without much ado deliver his unit and the man like you cannot be quarantined to deliver his unit he should actually deliver his state and deliver his political party in any elections so the world escrow has facts about which they have acted and I hear that the high court in Benway have also given an order restraining the national chairman from parading himself as national chairman then I saw on the news back of a TV station other than yours that the national chairman has said that it is only the national executive committee of the party that can remove him and I know that you would not have made that statement that statement may have been credited to him in error we are told that every judgement of court every decision of court no matter how worthless it may seem must be obeyed until a court a superior court says otherwise so that's why I know that Senators here are you who haven't been a lecturer some time senate president could not have said that the order of a high court it does not apply to him that is calling for anarchy so the people have the call he would do is to go to court and challenge the decision of the court but I'm not saying that the court cannot do anything to him I do not think that is the way to go okay but there is this matter of the constitution the PDP constitution which states that actually the ward Exco cannot do that if the person that is in question is a part of the national working committee that is according to your constitution and then let me just finish we have this example of the secretary today federation who was also removed by his ward working committee of his party overruled and then he was retained so does the ward Exco really have that power even as the constitution says they don't have to remove him let me quickly say this the constitution of the old progressive congress is not the same may not be the same with the constitution of the people's democratic party so when you make reference quickly or hastily to what happened between the party and the level of the ward in the case of the secretary to government you may be doing so hastily try and find out the PDP constitution says the national working committee members cannot be dissipated by anybody else except the national working committee I'd like you to refer me to the section you see it is not enough to come on the TV program and try to bamboozle people can you tell me section this of the PDP constitution says you recall you recall that the the ultimate power lies with the Executive Council of the committee at the ward level you recall that in the case of Oshomole that his ward escrow when Oshomole was the national chairman of the old progressive congress he took his ward to expel him from the party so what are you doing cherry picking you cannot do cherry picking so you refer me to the case of the SGF I have also referred you to the case of Adam Oshomole who was suspended by his ward you get the point at this point what one would say ordinarily the senator Iyaju shouldn't even have waited for his ward to take this decision for leading the for leading the party into this shameful defeat senator Iyaju ought to have done the needful by honorably resigning as national chairman every same person would have done now to stay put it was the same character the same attitude of wanting to stay put that led to the crisis that we have in the political party where people are so much attached to political offices in difference of the good of the majority a party goes into an election without five of his governors and you say to help with them we will win and here we are how can you no matter what it takes you have not been able to settle your we went into this election fragmented all those who some of those who voted for BDP and people who would have voted for the BDP as if that is not enough five governors says they have an issue and you refuse to listen you arrogantly carry on and this is what has happened even those who were urging and stoking this fire we are shocked that they could not even deliver their units so you can see arrogant and little in an organization people must learn to stoop to conquer well gentlemen we will just take a short break and when we return we will answer some of the questions that we have posed to ourselves right now so just a brief break now we will come back in a moment


Biodiesel has become increasingly popular due to its environmental advantages and availability from renewable sources like refined and waste vegetable oils. Ultrasonication can be used to optimize the conversion of these oils into biodiesel, resulting in increased efficiency and lower costs. This article was authored by Farouk Amir, Leslie Petrick, Bamakol Omigun, and others.


So, welcome back. After seeing this process the phase change process at constant pressure two phases in equilibrium that we saw in a PV diagram. So, let us have knowledge about these two phases thing together in equilibrium and for that let us refer to this PT diagram and PV diagram let us say. So, again let us have a LV saturation line here and we had seen that we heated a subcooled liquid from 20 degree centigrade and went up to 300 degree centigrade. I am showing just those points from 20 degree centigrade to 300 degree centigrade and this process change has happened at one atmospheric pressure and therefore the boiling point here in this case is 100 degree centigrade. So, here on a PT diagram I have shown the first point from where we started 20 degree centigrade and the point V and again on this P any property I have taken here on x axis which could be U, V, H and S thermal energy specific volume enthalpy or entropy I can take any of these properties. The point is because we have taken one atmosphere we can look at 100 degree centigrade which will lie on this LV saturation line and corresponding pressure is 0.10142 MPa and this was our starting point. If I extend this constant pressure line it will pass through this LV points also which are depict the subcooled region and goes up to superheated vapor region. Now, when I started increasing that temperature from 20 degree centigrade the phase change happened at 100 degree centigrade and because we started from liquid region the first point I hit is a saturated liquid line. So, corresponding properties of liquid can be obtained from the steam table and these points are normally referred to as with subscript F. So, saturated liquid giving subscript F and corresponding properties at this point are UF which is thermal energy, VF which is specific volume, HF enthalpy and SF is entropy of the liquid which is on saturated liquid line. So, correspondingly if you see on a PV diagram if I say I have taken this property as V, this is my saturated liquid line, this is saturated vapor line both these lines merge at critical point over here and this point on this line what we see is 100 percent liquid on this line what we see is 100 percent vapor. So, we are talking about this F point now, but this F point will be viewed as a same point when I see from this angle in a PT plane I will see as a point because both G and F actually coincide and I either therefore cannot differentiate between F and G point on a PT diagram and because I want to differentiate between them I have to refer to a PV diagram or a PU diagram or a PH diagram as shown over here. So, the first point I hit is saturated liquid line from where the phase transformation starts and it continues from point F to point G where 100 percent liquid now will get converted to 100 percent vapor. The properties at this point at point G are given with the subscript of G and they are given as now UG, VG, HG and SG. So, here G denotes dry saturated vapor. It was saturated liquid here now it is a dry saturated vapor here at this point and this length actually denotes the latent phase transformation. So, this enthalpy difference actually shows the latent heat associated with this phase transformation and it will be different at different pressures at one atmosphere we have got a latent heat of water at one atmosphere as you go up the top this latent it will start decreasing. The point to be noted is in the steam table now will have values for saturated liquid region giving as F as subscript will have properties at saturated gas region with the subscripts of G and any point in between this F and G actually is a two phase mixture two phases are in equilibrium there will be liquid region and there will be a vapor region depending on where it is because we are starting from 100 percent liquid to 100 percent vapor. So, depending on how close it is on the left side or at the right side the proportion of liquid and vapor will vary accordingly. What is important to note also is the difference between UG and UF VG and VF HG and HF and SG and SF the difference between HG and HF is nothing but HFG which is given over here and these two values the HFG and SFG are given in the steam table directly because we deal with those values directly they are given in the steam table but they are the difference between HG and HF which can also be directly rated from the steam table. While delta U sometimes referred as UFG delta V sometimes referred as VFG can be calculated because we know the value of UG and VG and also we know the values of UF and VF alright. Again point to be noted is as the pressure increases this delta U delta V HFG and SFG start decreasing because this length get decreased and you can notice that at point Cp the UF will be equal to UG, VF will be equal to VG, HF will be equal to HG and SF will be equal to SG. So delta U will be equal to 0, delta V will be equal to 0, HFG will be equal to 0 and SFG will be equal to 0 in that case and this is what will happen at critical pressure at 22 MPa and 373 degree centigrade. Thank you very much.


Our basic rights to exist rely on what we are able to eat, drink, and breathe. If any of these three components are compromised, then so is our health. If organizations such as the WHO, the FDA, and the EPA are in place to watch over our health, then why are there so many toxins in our air, water, and food supplies? For example, after the Fukushima disaster, the EPA raised the toxicity levels of how much radiation is acceptable to the human body. We are all economic slaves to a broken system of fiat currency. We work 40 plus hours a week, 50 plus weeks a year until we're old enough to retire, but are too elderly to fully enjoy our golden years. The best years of our lives were given to the same global corporations who have kept us financially enslaved. Ask yourself this. If there was no such thing as money, what would you be doing with your life? After having fun or traveling, eventually you'll want to do something. Your answer will often lead you to your life purpose. Eugenics is defined as the study of belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, especially by such means as discouraging reproduction, by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits, or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits. It's become obvious that there is a eugenics program in place in order to cull the world's population through the poisoning of our food, water and air supplies. While water is the world's most precious commodity, it is also a basic right for all of humanity. In 2003, a United Nations report predicted that by the middle of the century, in the worst case, 7 billion people in 60 countries could be faced with water scarcity. Our planet is covered with more than two thirds of it being water, but freshwater is only about 2.5% of it, while the rest is salt water. Out of the available freshwater, two thirds of it is locked in glaciers and in permanent snow cover. The available freshwater can be found in lakes, rivers, aquifers, and rain off and rainfall runoff. How long can you go without water? As Mahatma Gandhi proved in the 1940s, the body can go more than three weeks without food, but because the human body is at least compromised of 60% water, it needs water to function properly. At the maximum, depending on the conditions, one week would be the longest period you could go without water, but for most people it would only be three to four days in the most optimal of conditions where the temperature stayed around 70 degrees, which is about 21 Celsius. It's possible that one could survive up to 12 days without food or water. Conversely, if the temperature was significantly warmer, then surviving without water may only last several days, even if you were to be sitting in the shade. In extreme heat, the human body can lose up to 1.5 liters of water per hour through sweat. The consumption of alcohol would cause quicker dehydration due to excessive urination, but this only addresses the need for water and not what is in our drinking supply. In some areas of the United States such as Utah, Washington, or Colorado, it is illegal to trap your own rainwater or to divert water from a stream or river into a holding reservoir. While drilling for your own water supply through the local aquifer would be preferred, most people are reliant upon city drinking water, which does not filter out many of the pharmaceuticals that are in it through urination and limited filtering processes, along with the addition of fluoride to the drinking water in some countries. I think it's fair to say that sodium fluoride is contained in a rat poison, and I think it's also fair to say that it's contained in teeth. What comparison you wish to draw from that statement will be up to you to draw it. It is an ingredient of rat poison. Dr., is sodium fluoride in water any more dangerous than iodine and salt, Dr. Dunn? We believe that sodium fluoride in water in the proper proportions is in no way dangerous or harmful to health. Why then are you determined to force this on the people without a vote? I don't think I am prepared to force anything on people because I have no legislative authority to do anything.  Dr., I'm 57 years old. How old are you? I'm 33. I've got all my teeth. How many have you got? I have them all except third molars, which just weren't positioned. Well, I haven't all of mine. Mine were knocked out in a car crash long ago. But I don't know what that is proving. No, it doesn't prove anything. It proves that I was brought up by cleaning my teeth and not by taking rat poison in my water. So I've got my teeth. In an article published by the Associated Press, it was stated that pharmaceuticals have been found in 24 metropolitan cities, including antidepressant medications, anti-seizure medications, anti-inflammatory medications, painkillers, and even caffeine. Additionally, the Associated Press revealed that the drinking water of at least 41 million people in the United States is contaminated with pharmaceutical drugs. A study by the U.S. Geological Survey published in the journal Scientific Reports found that birth control drugs were found in unfiltered tap water, which could cause a possible widespread infertility epidemic in the coming years. Big Pharma is not in the business of finding cures because there is no money to be made without repeat business through prescriptions that constantly need to be refilled. The human body absorbs and expels these pharmaceuticals, which ultimately end up in our water supplies. Despite filtration processes at the water plants, pharmaceuticals continue to be found in our drinking water. One has to think about the consequences this has to all forms of water life, both freshwater and salt water, along with anything that consumes tap water, such as humans, pets, or plants. For many countries, the allowable level of fluoride in drinking water is 1.5 milligrams per liter. This is an arbitrary number that has never been proven to be safe.  As reported by Kristina Serich on Natural News, the CDC states that the EPA's enforceable standard for fluoride in public water supplies is 4.0 milligrams per liter. But this far exceeds any safe amount of fluoride that we should be drinking. A Russian study entitled The Effect of Small Quantities of Fluorine on the Human Body concluded that low concentrations of fluorine in drinking water, 1.5 milligrams per liter, caused changes to developing tissues and harms the development of higher neural activity in humans and animals. Fluoride is commonly found in water supplies, toothpaste, and mouthwash, but you will also find it in processed foods made with tap water. Fluoride is a poisonous waste that is so toxic that it cannot be directly dumped into the ocean or any water supply. If you look at the back of any fluoridated toothpaste, you will find a warning saying that if you swallow a pea-sized amount of toothpaste, you are supposed to call the Poison Control Center. According to Dr. Bill Osmondson, a pea-sized amount of fluoride is found in every small 8-ounce glass of fluoridated tap water. The following is a brief history of fluoride. While this greatly pertains to the United States, you'll also see why other countries need to be concerned, as it's also being put into our air supplies. 1931. Fluoride in drinking water is found to be the cause of brown teeth, now known as dental fluorosis. 1931. H. Trendley Dean of the United States Public Health Service initiates studies on fluorides under the jurisdiction of Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon. Mellon is founder of Alcoa Aluminum, who is one of the main suppliers of toxic sodium fluoride as a by-product of aluminum manufacturing. He publishes a purposely skewed study showing that fluoride results in the reduction of tooth decay. 1940. Soviet concentration camps were maintained by fluoride administration to inmates to decrease resistance to authority and induce physical deterioration. 1943. The Journal of the American Medical Association on September 18, 1943, states, fluorides are general protoplasmic poisons. 1944. Oscar Ewing is put on the payroll of the Aluminum Company of America, Alcoa, as an attorney at an annual salary of $750,000. Within a few months, Ewing was made federal security administrator with the announcement that he was taking a big cut in salary. The U.S. Public Health Service, then a division of the FSA, comes under the command of Ewing and he begins to vigorously promote fluoridation nationwide. A by-product of aluminum manufacturing is toxic. Ewing's public relations strategist for the fluoride campaign was the nephew of Sigmund Freud, Edward L. Bernays. Bernays conducts a public relations campaign to promote fluorine ingestion by applying Freudian theory to induce public acceptance. It was one of Bernays' most successful campaigns. 1950. Soviets add fluoride to water in prison systems to maintain subservience in the inmate population. 1952. The American Dental Association publishes an issue of its journal instructing its dentists not to discuss their personal opinions about fluoride. 1954. A study is published which links fluorides and the development of cancer in animals. 1958. In October 1958, Dr. J. F. Montague, a medical doctor, published material reflecting his growing concern over fluoridation in the journal of the International College of Surgeons, connecting the presence of fluorine in the human body to cancer. 1960. The American Dental Association issued a pamphlet for public consumption called Fluoridation Facts Answers to Criticism of Fluoridation. In defense of the use of toxic fluoride compounds in public water supplies, which is a grievous crime against humanity since it means mandated involuntary public medication, they used the logic that people have been known to live a ripe old age in areas the water supply is fluoridated. Unfortunately, they neglected to mention that the addition of fluoride to the water supply correlated directly with the number of stillbirths, mongoloid children, brittle teeth and enlarged dental root structures, adverse spinal conditions, osteomalacia, which is the softening of bones, and osteoporosis, which is abnormally porous and spaced structure inside of bone, and the medicated population as opposed to controlled populations that were unmedicated. 1963. A study is published which links fluoride and the development of cancer in animals. 1971. Germany Bands Water Fluoridation. 1977. The Congressional Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations convened two full congressional hearings on the subject of fluorides. During the hearing, it was proven that, one, the scientific efforts of those promoting fluoridation were fraudulent, and, two, other existing studies proved beyond a doubt that approximately 10,000 excess cancer deaths per year could be attributed to fluoridation in the United States. 1977. Congressional Representative L. H. Fountain, Chairman of the 1977 Subcommittee hearings on fluoride, states that, the carcinogenic nature of fluoride remains unanswered and orders the U.S. Public Health Service to conduct animal studies to see if fluoride causes cancer. Dr. Herman Crabill, from the National Cancer Institute, who in 1972 had been chosen by NCI to write a memo stating that fluorides do not cause cancer, was placed in charge of these studies. Crabill boldly states, this will be the final study to confirm negativity of fluoride ions in carcinogenesis. He cites 13 studies having nothing to do with the subject of fluorides and cancer, in order to support his claim that no link between fluorides and cancer existed. NCI Director Dr. Arthur Upton later admitted that 13 studies had nothing to do with the subject of the study. 1979. In order to counteract the tide of truth on fluorides, the American Dental Association issues a white paper on fluoridation. It characterizes opponents of public water fluoridation as uninformed, self-styled experts whose qualifications for speaking out on such a scientific issue as fluoridation were practically non-existent or whose motivation was self-serving. 1979. The January 20th edition of The New York Times carries a story in which a child was killed because of a lethal dose of fluoride at a city dental clinic. The parents were awarded $750,000. 1979. On November 11th, up to 50 parts per million fluoride was dumped into the Annapolis, Maryland water supply, resulting in the poisoning of 50,000 people. Many died of heart failure during the week, following the spill. Despite all of this, in 1990, the American Dental Association issues a press release which states, water fluoridation remains the safest, most effective, and most economical public health measure to reduce tooth decay. 1990. The National Toxicology Program in February 1990 releases its pathological data tables with a cover letter which, in a turnabout, claims, there has not been any evidence that shows a relationship between fluoridation and cancer or any other diseases in humans. And, water fluoridation has proven highly effective in improving the nation's dental health by markedly reducing tooth decay. The National Toxicology Report issued in March omitted all studies which showed genetic damage from fluorides, and important studies showing that fluorides-induced tumors and cancers were ignored. Robert Carton, Ph.D., formerly president of the Union of Governmental Scientists, working at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said, water fluoridation is the greatest case of scientific fraud of this century, if not of all time. In the journal Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products, Fifth Edition, 1984, it is stated that there is not a single scientific or laboratory study from anywhere in the world which proves that fluoridation reduces tooth decay in humans. There are, however, hundreds of published scientific papers which show that water fluoridation is dangerous to human, animal, plant, and aquatic life, which is no surprise since fluoride is more toxic than lead and only marginally less so than arsenic. You can find out a lot more about this article in The Hidden History of Fluoride on www.bodymindsoulspirit.com. A 2003 study by the nonprofit Natural Resources Defense Council, NRDC, found that due to a combination of pollutant deteriorating equipment and pipes, the public water supplies in 19 of America's largest cities delivered drinking water that contained contaminant levels exceeding EPA limits, either legal limits or unenforceable suggested limits, and may pose health risks to some residents. So even though it may test fine at its source, public water may still pick up contaminants on the way to your house. Contaminants that sneaked into city water supplies studied by the NRDC included rocket fuel, arsenic, lead, fecal waste, and chemical byproducts created during water treatment. Bottled water isn't necessarily the answer because it has its own issues. A four-year study conducted by the nonprofit National Resources Defense Council, NRDC, in 1999 found that bottled water regulations are inadequate to assure consumers of either purity or safety. Bottled water is regulated by the Food and Drug Administration, the FDA, while the Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA, oversees tap water standards. The FDA testing for bottled water is more lax than the EPA's testing for public water. FDA testing for bottled water is more lax than EPA testing for public water. Tests are conducted less often and for fewer contaminants. For example, the FDA does not mandate testing of bottled water for cryptosporidium, a parasite that poses serious health threats to those with weakened immune systems and to the elderly. Tap water is regularly tested for cryptosporidium. The NRDC study authors also tested 1,000 bottled water supplies from 103 brands and found that one-third contained contaminants that exceeded FDA mandated levels. The NRDC website states that even when bottled waters are covered by the FDA's specific bottled water standards, those rules are weaker in many ways than EPA rules that apply to big city tap water. City tap water can have no confirmed E. coli or fecal coliform bacteria. FDA bottled water rules include no such prohibition, meaning a certain amount of any type of coliform bacteria is allowed in bottled water. Bottled water plants must test for coliform bacteria just once a week. Big city tap water must be tested 100 or more times a month. Cities generally must test at least once a quarter for many chemical contaminants. Water bottlers generally must test only annually. Cities must have their water tested by government certified labs. Such certified testing is not required for bottlers. Tap water test results and notices of violations must be reported to state or federal officials. There is no mandatory reporting for water bottlers. The NRDC found that one fourth of bottled water is actually just tap water with or without extra filtration. FDA rules allows bottlers to label their water spring water even though it may be treated with chemicals or mechanically pumped to the surface and there's no guarantee that the spring itself is a pure one. One brand of spring water traced to its source by the NRDC came from a spring that bubbled up into an industrial parking lot adjacent to a hazardous waste site. For more information about bottled water standards please visit the NRDC website. In the upcoming years water could become more precious than gold if we cannot find a way to provide the world with clean drinking water. In Kenya a massive underground lake was found that could supply the country with fresh water for up to 70 years. In an article published in Science Magazine a huge underground reservoir was recently discovered 400 miles below the earth's surface that contains three times as much water as all of our oceans combined. Additionally huge fresh water aquifers have been discovered underneath the ocean floors are believed to exist in Australia, China, North America, and South Africa. In a recent development a team from MIT discovered a way to use solar panels to charge a cache of batteries which powers on an electrolysis machine that removes salt from the water and makes it perfectly drinkable. So between the aquifers lakes and reservoirs that are located beneath the earth's surface along with the newly discovered invention of converting salt water into drinking water there should be no excuse as to why clean drinking water cannot be enjoyed by everyone on this planet. If you don't have your own well water then invest in a quality water filter that will remove as many toxic ingredients from your water as possible. There are many different types of water filters so be sure to get one that works best for your particular water concerns. There isn't one specific water filter that will remove every contaminant from your water supply but you can remove a significant amount of these contaminants with the right filter. The best type of filter to remove chlorine and its byproducts is a combination of carbon kdf which stands for kinetic degradation fluxion adsorption filter not to be confused with absorption which range from shower and faucet filters to sink and whole house filters.  You also want to be sure to change your water filter as often as possible because these can become a haven for bacteria. You can also file fluoride complaints at the local and federal levels. Dr. Moussaro Emoto's research into water concluded that positive thoughts and intentions can physically change the structure of your water. You can also add ozone into your drinking water for added protection. You may even consider combining positive thoughts and intentions with the ozone for a supercharged water. Lastly, activism is one of the best ways to be heard. For example, you can write to your congressman and let him know how displeased you are about the fluoridation of water and alert that particular person about the dangers of fluoride. Call and ask your water utility company if it uses chlorine which is a suspected respiratory and neurological toxin or chloramine which is a suspected blood and respiratory toxin. Chlorine combines with organic elements during the water treatment process to produce carcinogenic byproducts.