Lucey and Larkin offer some thoughts on higher education reform. I either agree (evaluation, performance-related pay, fees) or do not know enough to have an opinion (curriculum*).
UPDATE: The Irish Times (2) has seen the report of the National Strategy Group for Higher Education. Strikes me as less radical than Lucey and Larkin.
* Clarification: I know a few anecdotes about a few courses at a few Irish universities.
Frank Convery dreams of a Silicon Valley of Emerald Green over at Comhar. To get to Silicon Valley, you need to pass through that other valley, where bad ideas face a certain death.
Rigour and scrutiny, however, are not part of Convery’s vision. He claims that Palo Alto “will be submerged if sea levels rise significantly” — ignoring that Palo Alto is 9 metres above sea level (projected sea level rise by 2100 is less than one-tenth of that); that people there know how to build dikes and can pay for it too; and that Palo Alto is special because of its people rather than because of its physical characteristics.
I left a comment to that effect on his blog, but discussion is not appreciated in sustainablalaland.
UPDATE: Comments are up now at Comhar.
UPDATE: Frank Convery responds. I close the discussion here.
Olivia Kelly reports that the national cycle path network has been unveiled. As is all too common, there is no trace of this with the Department of Transport or the National Roads Authority. There is a powerpoint from January 2010, though, which is consistent with Kelly’s description.
I’m all for cycling. I cycle to work. I wish more people would cycle, so that there are fewer cars on the road (they’re a menace, not just to women). A proper cycling policy is one of the few ways in which carbon dioxide emissions can be cut fast.
The national cycling network disappoints. Its primary aim is to connect Ireland’s main towns. People do not commute by bike from town to town. The distance is too large. Bike commuters travel from the near suburbs to the city centre (and back).
The cycle paths are for recreation so. It is instructive to compare the NRA’s proposed network to the one proposed by Failte (page 19). The Failte one takes the cyclist through a scenic landscape from one place of interest to the next. The NRA one takes the cyclist on the shortest route from population centre to population centre.
Bikes are not cars. You use them in a different way for a different purpose.
In a new twist in the Saga of the Poolbeg Incinerator, Dublin City Council will buy a stretch of foreshore so that a foreshore license is redundant (see below). The Indo is not impressed with the Minister. See also Times.
According to the newspapers, there is apparently a choice between having a license and having enough money to not need a license. (In this case, it is of course taxpayer’s money.) UPDATE: The resident expert tells me that CPO simplifies the foreshore license application as it removes the third party, but it does NOT obviate the need for a license.
By the way, while the Minister has not been behaving at his best over the course of this Saga, the delay in the foreshore license is not extraordinary: It often takes very long to get one. That is a problem, but a different one.
UPDATE2: Paul Melia writes: “A foreshore licence is needed as part of permission to build any development on the coastline. A local authority does not require one if it owns the land.” I read through the Foreshore Act 1933 and its amendments and cannot find any support for the second claim. Would be grateful if someone could correct me.