Asia’s disturbing urbanisation
By Wei Seng
This is not Fear Factor!
In The Economist, their Asian correspondent in the Banyan column wrote about the "alarming" developments of Asian cities and how Asia (in particular, China) is urbanising in an unsustainable manner.
Urban living need not necessarily be more pollutive, since in cities one travels about less to go to work, to marketing and so on (I shudder when I think of the suburban sprawl of America and the need to drive anywhere and everywhere, an anathema for someone like me who likes public transport). However, ill-planning has resulted in cities in China frequently tearing down recently-built buildings and rebuilding them, which is a waste of energy and resources. Also, even if environmental concerns are recognised by urban planners, "many new buildings are designed first, greened later", which is recognised to be "cheaper but less effective". It seems as if greening cities come as an afterthought rather than as part of a comprehensive, holistic design of a city. Urban planners need to include and increase green features in the cities they plan and build right from the beginning. It appears as if there needs to be a breakthrough in thinking among developers (in China, but elsewhere too) before green urbanisation can move forward.
Considering my personal experiences, I must say that it is not just China that has cities that are not very well planned and not green. I visit Kuala Lumpur (KL), the capital of Malaysia, frequently and find that while I like the shopping there, it is quite an un-green city in terms of environmental friendliness and greenery. There is not very much greenery around and the city is rather heavily concretised. The roads are not very well-planned and traffic jams are a constant feature of the streets of KL because of the poorly-planned road system that makes driving in KL traffic a headache. There are some green lungs within the city, such as at the Lake Gardens near KL Sentral and Bukit Nanas forest reserve around KL Tower, but it would be better to create more green lungs in and around the city, and even along the streets. At least Singapore's Orchard Road feels more comfortable because of the trees and shrubs along the shopping street.
Talking about Singapore, while I cant say we are the greenest city, our government is certainly doing a bit on its part to export its expertise on urbanisation. The Sino-Singapore Tianjin eco-city is a good example of how Singapore can help countries like China that are rapidly urbanising to urbanise greenly.
For those interested in urbanisation in China, the Go West Project website is worth reading for the case studies and news compilations.
Time to focus on palm oil
By Wei Seng
How is this not as disastrous as the Gulf oil spill?
As the oil spill in the Gulf continues unabated, environmentalists and activists are interested in targetting another source of fuel that may be an alternative to crude oil but is probably also as controversial in terms of its sustainability: palm oil.
The Economist reports late last month about how plam oil, "a popular, cheap commodity" is being targetted because of the damage to rainforests and ecosystems as a result of the encroaching oil palm forests, especially in our neighbouring countries Malaysia and Indonesia. Palm oil may be considered an alternative source of fuel as biodiesel, but the deforestation that takes places to plant oil palm trees is certainly far from environmentally friendly or sustainable. And at a time when "oil (continues) to spill into the Gulf of Mexico, companies' environmental responsibilities have never been more public", which makes this period a prime time to target companies that use palm oil as well as palm oil producers (mainly in Malaysia and Indonesia).
Is it possible to swear off palm oil usage? Firms being targetted for palm oil use, from Unilever to Nestle, are investing their supply chains to make sure that the palm oil they use comes from sustainable sources and of industry standard, though it is hard to control whether the palm oil obtained comes from sustainable sources as even palm oil certified as sustainable will be "mixed in with the rest" by processors and traders, the middlemen in the palm oil trade. Possible (but costly) alternative could include coconut oil which Lush, a British cosmestics company, is using. Otherwise, adopt the strategy of food companies such as Marks & Spencer and Mars: reduce palm oil content for health and "nutritional reasons".
The article in The Economist, in particular, also focuses a lot on environmental activists' approaches to appeal and petition industry, commerce and government. It is worth reading about all the environmental activism and the different tack activists take with time as the public, with a maturing and more sophisticated view about the environment, expect more from companies and industries. This article comes as a timely reminder that we should scrutinise how clean our sources of fuel are, even those supposedly considered as alternatives. A razed forest is certainly not any less disastrous as an oil-polluted sea.
Nuclear power debate
By Wei Seng
Nuclear energy: good for you?
Today I feature a debate on nuclear power on TED.com. In light of the ongoing oil spill off the Gulf of Mexico, it is good to revisit nuclear power as an alternative source of energy, especially for an energy-guzzling nation like America. Two experts argue the benefits and disadvantages of nuclear power, and this would be good for those who dont like to read academic stuff but prefer to watch it take place interactively on their iPod (or iPad, if you already have one).
Gulf Oil Spill: America’s Fault?
By Wei Seng
It is all America's fault!
At first glance, the title of the commentary written by Matthew Lynn of Bloomberg promises to stir controversy and in particular wrath amongst Americans and environmentalists: "BP Needs to Tell Whining Americans to Take A Hike", screams the headline. I thought it was quite outrageous and audacious of him to write something like that, but after combing through the article in Today, I realised that he had a valid point, albeit only one and flashing it out in a very blunt and insensitive manner.
Of course, to tell Americans to "go take a hike" would really be a slap in the face of Americans affected by the oil spill. Livelihoods have been destroyed as fisheries become polluted, ecosystems and biodiversity continues to suffer devastation as time passes. And while employing the "spin doctor" might seem like a waste of money to BP because of the irreversible damage to environment and reputation, to not do anything would put the management of BP in a tough spot with the shareholders (though I think it deserves quite a bit of grilling for the disaster).
Lynn's reasons for asking BP to snub the Americans:
1. "US is guilty of crazy double standards" - given the huge oil consumption / addiction of America, no wonder "oil companies have to drill in more and more dangerous places" to keep up with the demand
2. BP, with its reputation "finished in the US", should just hire "the nastiest, meanest lawyers that money can buy - the one commodity the US has in overabundance". This would no doubt make the Americans choke with burning wrath, but I like Lynn's stab at America's obsession with expensive, sometimes needlessly convoluted lawsuits
3. "BP needs to protect its shareholders" so BP should sell its American assets and just withdraw from America and focus on other markets
I think the blood of the Americans must be boiling as they read this, but I think the one lesson they need to take away is to cut on the addiction to oil, or accidents like this may not be the only one. It is promising that President Barack Obama is acting on alternative clean energy sources, but there needs to be action soon and fast.
Vertical Farming?
By Wei Seng
Given the constraints of arable land in many countries, and the intensifying urbanisation taking place across the world, what options are there for food production? The Daily Green features some exciting vertical farms that are grown on high-rise buildings, right in the city. Besides providing food for the people in the surroundings, it lowers transportation costs of food as well as provides cooling relief much like a vertical garden / green wall would. Looks quite exciting... I feature some of the more exciting and / or feasible vertical farms here. More detailed sketches of such vertical farms can be found here.
Pyramid vertical farm
Proposed for Chicago
Recycling in Singapore
By Wei Seng
Cant rely on the karang guni man for our recycling future right?
I read this article in The Straits Times last week about recycling in Singapore and how Singapore "has First World technology but Third World attitudes" with regard to recycling: plenty of green technology being developed comparable to that in the West, but poor adoption or underutilization of such technologies or facilities, comparable to that of many developing nations.
Singapore, on the surface, has a good recycling culture: 57% national recycling rate last year. Unfortunately "what gets recycled reveals that the rates are highest for construction debris... generated from industrial use and recycled by scrap dealers". In terms of common materials being recycled, the recycling rate is highest for paper (48%, probably thanks to the karang guni man who comes around to collect old newspapers every so often) and lowest for plastic (9%, because there are few facilities for collection of plastics for recycling as well as little awareness of plastics recycling). Households and businesses (not including industries) are not doing enough in the recycling effort apparently.
The writer Grace Chua suggests that "recycling should be legislated", which the government currently is loath to do in fear of inflicting higher costs. Then again, how much more incineration and landfilling can we do? Incineration seems to burn the trash problem away but the contribution to greenhouse gas emissions is not insignificant. While only incinerator ash and trash that cannot be incinerated are buried at the landfill (currently on Pulau Semakau), there will come a day whereby the landfill will be full and hopefully we wont have to "ship (our) ash to neighbouring countries... or find pricey ways to use the ash in construction".
Laws that promote recycling could start by demanding that businesses recycle certain packaging they use or produce in making their goods, or mandate the compulsory sorting of trash for recycling. More expensive but certainly more useful and direct would be to have recycling chutes in each block rather than the current setup of bins shared among a group of blocks in an estate, which recycling companies rarely empty. Singaporeans are too used to convenience that the added trouble of going downstairs to throw away recyclables would doom / have doomed the recycling effort in HDB estates. I used to have recycling bins at the void deck of the block next door, but several months back when I tried to dispose of some recyclables the bins had disappeared. Apparently it has been underutilized and hence removed by the recycling company.
Financial incentives could also be used, and it would probably work if people are motivated just as they sell newspapers to the karang guni man (rag and bone man) for money. Landfill taxes or charging by volume of waste collected would create incentives to cut waste produced and recycle (or reduce and reuse, even better for the environment) more. Such incentives have to be introduced because unfortunately for the karang guni men, their numbers are dwindling and they are collecting less and less of newspapers (recycling companies are paying them less and less for the amount of paper collected) and more and more of what brings in the money, which in recent times would include old wine such as aged XO or old, damaged electronics. So to continue to rely on the karang guni men to instill the habit of recycling would not be sensible.
To appeal to the competitive streak in us Singaporeans, Singapore needs to catch up with other countries that Singapore supposedly competes with on the global arena. Japan, Hong Kong and Taiwan, all Asian economic giants and considered to be of First World stature, all have very good recycling initiatives and high househould recycling rates. It is not feasible to just rely on industries to recycle and do their part for the environment, households and businesses have to get into the recycling habit as well, if not for the environment, at least for their wallets.
A Green Graduation Ceremony Speech
By Wei Seng
How do I put my Geography degree to good use?
On The Daily Green, columnist Ned Sullivan posts a speech that he gave at a graduation ceremony for University of Albany's Geography and Planning Programme. As a future geography student at NUS, the contents of his speech certainly touch me, but what he says are not just applicable to Geography majors, as much as these graduates would be enabled to do more for the community and environment than most because of the background knowledge they have and the specialised education they receive as Geography students.
In his speech, he details a lot of how we can all contribute to the environment and community at large, juxtoposing with the recent oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico as well as evidence of climate change.
For those who wonder of the uses of learning Geography or interested in how being educated in Geography at university level can provide empowerment, do take a look at the speech for inspiration.
Some green myths debunked (2)
By Wei Seng
Is the green gold you are reaping fool's gold?
In a follow-up from my previous article, I continue with some more green myths and the realities.
Myth 16: Plant more trees in the city because they absorb carbon
Reality: The maintenance of urban trees makes it unlikely they are net storers of carbon
(Maintenance of trees through pruning produce emissions that can offset the carbon absorbed by the trees, though these trees can lower costs and energy used for cooling purposes)
Myth 18: Offsets are the answer to climate change
Reality: There's no such thing as a free lunch
(Carbon offsets, such as planting trees elsewhere, to compensate for emissions may lessen guilt but without monitoring, there is no assurance that offsets have truly happened)
Myth 19: Snowy winters equal no global warming
Reality: Weather is not the same thing as climate, even though Donald Trump thinks it is
(Geography students learn that weather does not equate climate, that climate is determined by long-term weather records, so occasional cooler weather does not mean the climate is not getting warmer, whereas it has been proven that the increasingly hotter weather indicates that the climate is warming. Also, what happens locally does not correspond regionally or globally)
Myth 21: I'd never buy an electric car because I'd run out of power and be stranded
Reality: Don't be so paranoid
(To paraphrase / contextualise the example used, if you are not driving from Singapore to Kuala Lumpur frequently, one's distance driven daily is actually quite manageable for the electric car)
Myth 22: Electric cars rated to go 100 miles will make it that far
Reality: It depends where you're driving and when
(Unfortunately, undulating terrain and hot weather can shorten the possible range)
Myth 23: Car air conditioning wastes energy
Reality: Don't sweat it
(Winding down the windows may keep you cool, but the air resistance while driving on the highway could have an impact on fuel consumption)
Myth 24: Hybrids are much better for the environment than regular cars
Reality: Not all hybrids are created equal
(Luxury hybrid cars like some of that of Lexus cannot compare in terms of fuel economy with true blue hybrid cars like the Toyota Prius, even if luxury hybrid cars may be slightly greener than its luxury non-hybrid variants)
Myth 25: Driving fewer miles is good for the environment
Reality: The shortest distance between two points is not always the greenest
(The distance may be short, but if you idle or drive in start-stop traffic, you may end up consuming more fuel that a vehicle traveling longer but always making left turns - meaning there is no need to stop unlike when making right turns at traffic junctions)
Some interesting realities that fly against conventional thinking. Think carefully about what you do for the environment, because sometimes you never know if what you do might unintentionally be less green that you thought.
Some green myths debunked (1)
By Wei Seng
Reality check
I leafed through my friend's copy of Fortune magazine when I was bored, and found it rather boring since I am not very much into business and finance. The Green section of the magazine however caught my attention. In an article a few months back, it debunks 25 green myths that people often have. I feature the myths that would be particularly applicable in the local context, splitting up this feature into several parts over several days. I have to deliver content that can sustain this place for days, now that I write most for Erpz.net given how busy Kevin has been.
Myth 1: Bottled water is safer than tap water
Reality: Tap water is subject to stricter government standards
(In the case of Singapore, the standards for tap water are especially high, so I have no qualms about drinking straight from the tap if I cannot find a water cooler)
Myth 2: Buying local food is better for the environment
Reality: It depends on how your food was produced and delivered
(It's not just about distance traveled, it is also about amount of energy needed in general to produce the food)
Myth 3: Organic foods are produced without pesticides
Reality: Organic guidelines need to be tightened up
(There is so far no set guideline to determine what constitutes organic, so consume with discretion)
Myth 4: Cars are one of the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases
Reality: Yes, but those hamburgers you gobble down are actually much worse
(Meat contributes 18% of greenhouse gas emissions, compared to 13% for vehicles. Time to cut down on your meat intake? Go vegetarian, as Supreme Master TV would like you to do to save the planet)
Myth 9: Paper grocery bags are better than plastic ones
Reality: Plastics, young man, plastics
(Paper bags require more energy to produce, and usually do not last as long as plastic. But it is precisely because plastics dont degrade which makes plastic bags a hazard, so... use cloth bags!)
Myth 11: I'll save energy if I keep my appliances turned off
Reality: Yes, but not as much as you think
(If you keep them plugged in, they will still suck energy)
Myth 13: We can meet our energy needs and global-warming targets with wind and solar power
Reality: Perhaps, but not for a very long time
(Solar is still expensive at this point in time, while wind is not very reliable. The best option is to gradually phase in alternative energy sources while phasing out the most pollutive energy sources such as coal)
I will cover more myths in another article next time. Some of these nuggets of information are encouraging, but others are a sobering reminder that we are still quite far away from a green revolution that will make our lifestyles much more environmentally-friendly.
A side effect of global warming
By Wei Seng
Temperatures rising
Global warming does not just warm up the planet, it also turns the heat up on one's temparement apparently, according to a National Geographic article.
Based on a study combining government data on temperatures with statistics on violent crimes, it appears that warmer temperatures bring about increased cases of violence. Sounds like a simplistic correlation, and after all correlation often does not mean cause-and-effect. But from a psychological / sociological point of view it appears that hot weather can increase irritability and hence violent tendencies. In addition, "people tend to go outdoors more when the weather is warmer", which would mean greater social interaction and thus greater opportunities for criminal activities, though I suspect this would probably apply mainly for Europe and North America, given that in Singapore I suspect most people would rather stay at home or at most head out to the shopping malls to enjoy the air-conditioning.
Some additional food for thought when one considers the problems global warming cause.