Ever had the experience of buying a piece of bread or bun from a small bakery store and had to throw away the plastic bag immediately after eating it? In Singapore, buying and eating takeaway snack food is very popular. Over the past few years, we have observed the boom of small stalls that populate the basement level of each shopping mall. Examples of these food and their stalls would include bread from Breadtalk, a stick of fishball or curry puff from Old Chang Kee, bubble tea from Sweet talk, doughnuts from Dunkin Donuts, etc.

Often, these great tasting food items are already wrapped with a piece of plastic sheet over it, but usually cashiers would still place these into a second plastic bag. Hearing this, you would think – is it necessary to have everything wrapped in plastic? Surely there are some food types that can be placed into paper bags? Three fishballs on a stick is not worth that many plastic bags.

However, it is not only this issue of too many plastic bags that worry me. It is the attitude of the people here in Singapore. I have witnessed countless people simply taking their food out of the second plastic bag and throwing the bag away the second they got their hand on their food item. It is horrifying to know that the second unnecessary plastic bag was used for merely under a minute and it would now lay somewhere for centuries. What a waste of energy to make and then discard it. What a waste of money! Think about how many people do this every day in Singapore, and multiply that by how many times per day per person. Now then multiply this number for the billions of people worldwide. I am sure that it would amount to something quite terrifying.

What can Singapore do to change the attitude of these people? As a nation, we have pledged to the world that we will fight climate change. Despite all the efforts the Singapore government is making, are their efforts and action inspiring the local people? To some yes, but the majority still do not understand the real importance of why humans need to change our lifestyle and habit.

Sure, there are stores out there in Singapore that try to discourage the use of plastic bags by charging an extra ten cents for its use. Is that working? Is ten cents enough to deter the use of plastic bags? In NTUC grocery chains, for each time you bring a recyclable bag to store your groceries, they take ten cents off your total bill. Again, do we really think ten cents would matter that much to the busy working people in Singapore?

The real question is – does Singapore have to resort to monetary measures to teach Singaporeans how to reduce and reuse plastic bags? If Singapore is really keen to go against the use of plastic bags, I believe it would not be so difficult. If the larger nations like America can practice this, so can a small nation like Singapore. Singapore has proven itself to be a law-abiding nation with disciplined and determined people, we can take a step higher and cut down our consumption of plastic bags.

The retail and F&B industry ought to revamp itself. Perhaps it is time for the Singapore Retail Association (SRA), the Food & Beverage Manager’s Association of Singapore (F&BMA) and the Restaurant Association of Singapore (RAS) to collaborate and work out a plan to re-package their goods. This together with education would take Singapore a notch up towards being an eco-friendlier nation.

The next time you buy something, ask yourself if you really need that plastic bag. I always turn down the plastic bag even after the cashier has already placed my items into it. More often than usual, you would be surprised that the cashier would be very willing to take the items back out of the plastic bag and a soft “thank you” can be heard.

This is Eugene’s reply to the Straits Times Forum on his article:

I refer to the article, “Reasons for S’pore to be cool on global warming” by Andy Ho (ST Oct 30).

As a compulsive reader of The Straits Times, I am disappointed and appalled by Mr Ho’s attempt to manipulate and confuse public thinking on climate change and the urgent actions needed, based on misleading claims and references in his article. This is a serious dent in this most widely-read national newspaper’s reputation, neutrality and journalistic integrity.

Mr Ho suggested that Singapore should be slow to sign up to any emissions cap, and attempted to show that the scientific evidence on man-made global warming is not clear-cut and that an emissions cap is not supported and is costly. I would like to refute the following eight points in his article:

1. Singapore should be slow to sign up to any emissions cap

Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew spoke at the Singapore Energy Lecture last year and discussed about Singapore’s green efforts over the years and the need to maintain the efforts because:

The point is, if we don’t do this, we lose our status as a clean, green city and we’ll lose our business and lose our extra premium for being an unusual city.

Singapore is beginning to lose that extra green premium in the coming low-carbon world. Asian countries like Japan, South Korea and even China are taking proactive steps to become a low-carbon economy, to sign up to emissions cap, and to be recognised as green leaders. It is no longer enough just to be “clean and green” in this new carbon-constrained world.

Singapore has to fundamentally and holistically look at its economy and consider whether a business-as-usual economic development is possible and competitive. In the light of climate change, a real green country has to take the lead in setting emissions targets and reducing its emissions, ensuring energy and food security and sufficiency, and creating a green economy and green jobs.

Climate change represents crisis and also opportunities. There are great and challenging opportunities to make the change now and lessen future impacts and costs of climate change. The cost of taking action on climate change is high but the cost of not taking action is even higher. The Stern Review published in 2007 concluded that the earlier effective action is taken, the less costly it will be.

2. The consensus support of 2,500 scientists in the IPCC is not true

The IPCC 4th Assessment Report (AR4) released in 2007 is a collaborative effort supported by the many Working Groups, authors and reviewers to show a consensus on man-made global warming and the need to take urgent actions based on climate sciences and observed changes in the climate.

The 2,500 scientists referred to by Mr Ho are the scientific expert reviewers involved in the scientific and technical review process of the AR4. The review process is described below
(http://www.ipcc.ch/press_information/press_information_fact_sheet1.htm):

IPCC reports are written by teams of authors, nominated by governments and international organizations. They come from universities, research centres, business and environmental associations from all over the world. More than 800 contributing authors and more than 450 lead authors were involved in the writing of the AR4.

Review is an essential part of the IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment of current information. More than 2.500 scientific expert reviewers were involved in the two-stage scientific and technical review process of the AR4.

For the first review, the drafts are circulated to specialists with significant expertise and publications in the field. A wide circulation process ensures contributions from independent experts in all regions of the world and all relevant disciplines. Revised drafts are distributed for the second review to governments and to all authors and expert reviewers. Governments and expert reviewers can provide comments on the accuracy and completeness of the scientific/technical/socio-economic content and the overall balance of the drafts. Differing views for which there is significant scientific or technical support are clearly reflected in the final documents.

As reviewers, the 2,500 scientists’ work is to provide comments and feedback on parts of the report text so as to make the report better and more accurate. In any review process, not all the comments are accepted into the final text. So it is no surprise that the “number actually includes those who disagreed with parts of it but had no say in the final text”. What is important is that there is a process of explaining why the comments are rejected. All the IPCC reviewers’ comments and responses to their comments are available for public viewing at http://hcl.harvard.edu/collections/ipcc/.

3. Climate science is not an exact one yet as shown through a petition by scientists

Mr Ho mentioned the 9,029 scientists who reject man-made global warming at www.petitionproject.org. In fact, the actual number is 31,478 American scientists, of which 9,029 have PhDs. The petition (also known as the Oregon Petition) started in 1998 and was circulated in the US (together with a 12-page review paper) among those with BS, MS, or PhD degrees in science, engineering, or related disciplines.

The petition is questionable. First, it is too easy for anyone with a degree to just sign the petition without proper credentials and understanding of climate sciences. Two, the signatories might have signed the petition before reading the latest information on climate change by the IPCC and other national science academics. Three, it was widely reported that the review paper, the people and organisations behind the petition are not credible.

(http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/oregon-institute-of-science-and-malarkey/;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2;

http://debunking.pbworks.com/Oregon-Petition)

It is laughable to say that climate science is not exact by quoting a petition of 9,029 American PhD holders. Scientists do not only exist in the US. There are many scientists in other countries that support man-made global warming as represented by the IPCC and national science academies including:

• National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
• Science Council of Japan
• Russian Academy of Sciences
• Australian Academy of Sciences
• Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
• Brazilian Academy of Sciences
• Royal Society of Canada
• Caribbean Academy of Sciences
• Chinese Academy of Sciences
• French Academy of Sciences
• German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina
• Indian National Science Academy
• Indonesian Academy of Sciences
• Royal Irish Academy
• Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy)
• Academy of Sciences Malaysia
• Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
• Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
• Royal Society (UK)

4. Climate change debate is often heated as shown by the public challenge issued by Christopher Monckton to Al Gore

Christopher Monckton is widely reported to have a dubious reputation and is not being taken seriously. He is not trained in climate sciences although he has published several articles and papers to debunk man-made global warming, which are not peer-reviewed and contain dodgy claims and misleading errors.

(http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/05/moncktons-deliberate-manipulation/;

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/07/once-more-unto-the-bray/;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley)

It is up to Al Gore to choose whether to response to Christopher Monckton, and if Al Gore did not reply, it does not mean that Christopher Monckton is then right. Besides, the definition of “debate” refers to a serious discussion of a subject in which many people take part (according to the Cambridge Dictionary). Public challenges issued by a dodgy person do not represent a debate, let alone a heated climate change debate.

5. Water vapour and clouds could be the cause of climate variations, and not human activities

The debate on water vapour and clouds boils down to whether water vapour is considered as feedback or radiative forcing. According to the IPCC, radiative forcing is “a measure of the influence that a factor has in altering the balance of incoming and outgoing energy in the Earth-atmosphere system and is an index of the importance of the factor as a potential climate change mechanism” whereas “feedbacks can amplify or dampen the response to a given forcing”. In other words, forcings are processes that can force changes in our climate, and feedbacks are indirect or secondary changes in our climate in response to forcings.

Mr Ho referred to Dr Roy Spencer, who argues that water vapour is significant as a forcing. On the other, the IPCC AR4 treats water vapour as feedback in climate models but also acknowledges the importance of water vapour:

Direct emission of water vapour (a greenhouse gas) by human activities makes a negligible contribution to radiative forcing. However, as global average temperature increases, tropospheric water vapour concentrations increase and this represents a key positive feedback but not a forcing of climate change. Water vapour changes represent the largest feedback affecting equilibrium climate sensitivity and are now better understood than in the TAR. Cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty.

There are of course questions on climate science including the role of water vapour and clouds. There are also no perfect climate models. However, the existence of these questions and imperfection does not mean that there is no consensus on man-made climate change. The study on climate change is not just based on climate models but also on climate sciences and observed data.

6. Global emissions reduction is costly as it will cost at least US$100 billion a year

To give a comparison of how costly is US$100 billion, consider the following: The world GDP in 2007 is US$54,891 billion; the world military expenditure is US$1,464 billion in 2008; and the world advertising expenditure is US$455 billion in 2007.

We are not short of money to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We are just spending them in the wrong areas and lacking the political willpower and foresight to spend them wisely. Surely, spending about 0.2% of global GDP yearly to mitigate climate change is not asking too much. Furthermore, the earlier effective action is taken, the less costly it will be, as concluded by the Stern Review.

7. The majority of the world’s population do not share the values and attitudes on combating global warming

Mr Ho tried to show that the citation: “’Thanks to Obama’s initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role’ in combating global warming” and that “Mr Obama would ‘do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world’s population’” is false because most people in the G77, including China and India, do not share the values and attitudes on combating global warming as they would not agree to reduce their use of fossil fuels.

This is wrong on two counts. First, the Nobel Peace Prize’s nominating committee’s citation did not imply that the USA is now playing a more constructive role in combating global warming on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world’s population. The two sentences by Mr Ho are taken out of context and placed together to form that impression. The actual text of the Nobel Peace Prize’s press release is shown below (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/press.html):

Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama’s initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.

Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world’s population.

Second, it is not true that China and India “would not agree to reducing their use of fossil fuels” or take action on climate change. In fact, China’s president, Hu Jintao, in his recent speech on climate change at the United Nations General Assembly, has already committed to the following (http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/3259): “We will endeavour to cut carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP by a notable margin by 2020 from the 2005 level.” and “We will endeavour to increase the share of non-fossil fuels in primary energy consumption to around 15% by 2020.”

India has also highlighted efforts in its National Action Plan on Climate Change to “significantly increase the share of solar energy in the total energy mix while recognizing the need to expand the scope of other renewable and non-fossil options such as nuclear energy, wind energy and biomass” and “is determined that its per capita greenhouse gas emissions will at no point exceed that of developed countries even as we pursue our development objectives.” (http://pmindia.nic.in/climate_change.htm)

8. There is a decline in the proportion of the US public believing that human activities cause global warming as shown by the Pew Research Centre poll

The Pew Research Centre poll also shows a sharp decline in the proportion of the public saying that there is “solid evidence that the average temperature on earth has been getting warmer over the past few decades”. In a follow-up article, the Pew Research Centre suggested some reasons for the sharp declines, including “a sour economy and, perhaps, a cooler than normal summer in parts of the United States”. They explained that:

Pew Research surveys show that as economic concerns have surged, fewer people view the environment as a top policy priority. In our annual survey on the public’s policy agenda, just 41% rated protecting the environment as a top priority; just a year earlier, 56% rated it as a top priority. Yet other issues also were overshadowed as more people focused on the economy and jobs. There were sharp declines as well in the proportions rating dealing with illegal immigration (down 10 points), reducing health care costs (10 points) and reducing crime (eight points) as top priorities for the president and Congress.

This could suggest that the public thinking on whether the earth is getting warmer or whether it is human activities causing global warming has been distorted and influenced by the economic downturn, leading to sharp declines in the poll.

The word “green” probably has many meanings in different nations with different culture and religions. Green could mean envy, money, nature, health and life. Green is also the official religious colour in Islam. Recently, there seem to be a unifying meaning for green. The word green is now seen to convey the message of saving the environment.

In Singapore, the word “green” would imply energy saving light bulbs, biodegradable products, solar powered houses, green buildings and of course, not forgetting the 3Rs – reduce, reuse and recycle. But why is the word “green” not directly linked to protecting and conserving biodiversity? Is it because we humans are selfish?

We forget that we take actions to reduce our energy consumption not just to save our precious fossil fuels and reduce gas prices, or to reduce global warming and the resultant erratic weather patterns. We take actions ultimately to save the environment and its highly inter-linked and complex ecosystems and biodiversity.

Singaporeans has learnt about how to recycle, or take the public transport instead of driving but many are unequipped with the knowledge on the importance of ecosystems and biodiversity conservation. Once we understand these concepts, we will realize how our daily actions have such big impacts on the millions of species on Earth whom we share with.

Plants, animals and the natural world are fascinating, and we have spent centuries learning about them and from them. Many of our problems are solved by solutions from nature – using bacteria as medicine and discovering gravity from apples falling. While we try to change and adjust our bad human habits that lead to the destruction of Earth and the extinction of species, we ought to also put in more “greener” efforts to help the environment directly.

As a small nation with little natural resources, let us not forget that even the flora and fauna in Singapore are also defined as resources. These plants and animals are part of the ecosystem, which humans depend on. Singapore has already given up a large portion of its original tropical rainforest to build Singaporeans a better home, causing the extinction of many species that once used to live alongside with us. Now that you feel a tinge of guilt, you ought to do a part in protecting whatever nature spots we have left in the form of fragmented forestland, mangroves and swamps.

This remaining precious land is home to many species, some of which are unique only to Singapore. Going green is on one hand, like what we have been told, saving water, switching to fans instead of air conditioners, reducing the use of paper and plastic bags, and changing our light bulbs to energy saving ones, etc. On the other hand, it is also to do our part to protect and conserve the biodiversity that we have as a nation, because these plants and animals are born and bred here. They too, are “Singaporeans”.

There are many ways to care for our flora and fauna directly, like actively participating in mangrove and beach clean ups which are organized by environmental groups such as Toddycats, Nature Society, and the International Coastal Cleanup Singapore. Not littering in parks and rivers will also help. As the future lies in the hands of the children today, education and sparking interest among the young in areas of biology and biodiversity will shape Singapore towards a future of being a nature loving society.

Last but definitely not the least, one can also provide resources and support to the organizations that help to preserve and conserve our environment. Singapore is very lucky to have agencies like the National Environment Agency and the National Parks Board that do their part in protecting the environment and conserving nature in Singapore.

Even with the current nature enthusiasts, there are still many more “positions” that are open to help protect Singapore and the Earth. These positions have almost no criteria except to be passionate in preserving Nature’s creation. I hope you would send your resume in for this position soon.

The Weather Stations

A SITE-SPECIFIC DANCE PERFORMANCE

27 & 28 Nov 2009 8pm

The National Geographic Store, Vivo City Singapore

Ticketing: Standard $35 | Friends of ARTS FISSION $30

How we have forgotten to watch the weather and heed the signs as apocalypse.

Into the Freezing Chamber we go.

Let the Arctic ice cool

Our burning head and

Etch our awe to nature in frozen memory

The Weather Stations reflects modern people’s detachment to nature and their environment even in the face of extreme climate changes. The site-specific dance performance at the museum-like National Geographic Store allows the roving audience for an intimate, gallery viewing experience with intriguing distance between performers and audience.

Dancers in dramatic costumes with Pianist Shane Thio playing a wired harpsichord, and nanyin musicians performing ancient instruments add to the theatre intensity and urgency of our planet in peril.

The Weather Stations is the first of the four modules under the larger dance project titled LOCUST WRATH, an original creation initiated by Choreographer Angela Liong in collaborations with Composer Joyce Beetuan Koh and other artists and scientists on the theme of climate change and the impact on arts, culture and humanity.

Media Enquiries:

Dawn Pereira-Humphries

Arts Manager / Project Manager

Email: dawnpereira@artsfission.org

Website: www.artsfission.org

Performance concept:

The Weather Stations explores the natural elements with reference to Asian cultures as well as the flux and changes caused by climate change.

In the dance performance, the natural elements slide and regroup themselves through rotating solo dances that roll into duets and trios, etc. The interplay of the elements’ physical property adds coloration to the familiar weather phenomenon. Recurring motifs to evoke effects of climate change on the environment and people will be featured in different dramatic scenarios.

The highlights of the performance include collaborations with theatre director Lim Jen Erh, original score by Composer Joyce Koh, Pianist Shane Thio playing on an electronically-wired harpsichord and two nanyin musicians performing 1500 years old ancient music from southern China.

Viewing Format:

The roving audience moves in different groups between four preset weather stations located in various parts of the National Geographic Store. These locations include the Freezing Chamber and the Gallery with metal poles that provide interesting spatial challenge as well as unique viewing perspective.

Each weather station is a micro-environment connected to natural elements like ice, wind, rain, swirling eddies, or thunderstorms that reflect the dynamics of different meteorological phenomenon. The performance of the four stations happens simultaneously and in repetition to allow audience to linger from station to station.

The viewing expeditions will cumulate into a destination depot where all audience and performers will congregate at one place and witness the finale conclusion of a planet in peril.

Performance Duration: 45-minutes with no intermission

Number of Performers: 9 performers (6 Dancers and 3 Musicians)

Performance date/time: 27 & 28 Nov 2009, 8pm

Audience capacity per performance (standing room only): 300

Ticketing Enquiries:

The National Geographic Store: check in-store

The ARTS FISSION Company: tafcl@singnet.com.sg and 6238 6469

Here’s a preview of some Singapore photos:

Chek Jawa, Singapore

Pulau Ubin, where time stood still

Marina Barrage Singapore

Nothing in Sight

Reaching for the Sky

Photos credit: William Cho

Be part of a breathtaking image for the most important cause of our generation.

We’re expecting hundreds of people wearing nothing but blue to meet at SMU before converging on LASALLE Campus Green, once there, we will perform a short dance and then disperse. Help us to raise awareness and support for the prevention of Climate Change.

Simultaneously, people in every corner of the world will be taking similar action, from climbers with 350 banners high on the melting slopes of Mount Everest to government officials in the Maldive Islands holding an underwater cabinet meeting to demand action on climate change before their nation disappears.

WHEN: Saturday, Oct 24, 1:30pm to 4:30pm

WHERE: Register at SMU, T-Junction (beneath Li Ka Shing Library)

WEAR: BLUE!

Facebook event: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=162570697406&ref=mf

All of this is to show global support for ambitious, fair and binding action on climate change. World leaders will be meeting in Copenhagen soon to reach a new agreement on Climate Change. We need them to go further than they intend to go: to get carbon levels below 350 parts per million.

Wear everything blue you can find – shirts, pants, shoes, but ESPECIALLY your head as we’ll be taking Aerial photographs.

Register at SMU at 1pm. We will learn a short dance at SMU before we move to LASALLE College of the Arts to flood the campus green and perform the dance.

Please register at http://www.350.org/TidalWaveSG

Registration is limited to the first 350 who join, so be quick!

Want to be even more involved?

We’re looking for VOLUNTEERS to help martial the crowd

VOLUNTEERS EMAIL: volunteer@eco-singapore.org

We’re looking for ACTORS to take on special surprise roles within the crowd

ACTORS EMAIL: wave@skinnedkneeproductions.com

This is part of ongoing events throughout the day, including vegetarian food and drinks and a wacky walk.

Check them all out at http://350sg.com/

Or join the facebook event for the whole day:

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=150264939405&ref=ts

Singapore International Energy Week (SIEW) 2009 is a platform for international and regional policy makers, industry players, and academics, to discuss pertinent energy issues and strategies affecting the world today.

Taking place from 16 to 20 November, SIEW 2009 builds on the theme “Clean Energy: Sustainable Solutions for Urban Cities” to bring together leading figures in the energy industry for a week of high-level discussions on key issues around energy security, sustainability, financing and innovation.

Jointly organized by Singapore’s Energy Market Authority (EMA) and the Energy Studies Institute (ESI), SIEW 2009 comprises a comprehensive schedule of conferences, exhibitions and networking sessions.

Programme highlights include:

• Dr. Daniel Yergin, co-founder of Cambridge Energy Research Associates (IHS CERA) and author of “The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money & Power”, speaking on The Future of Energy
• Mr. Nobuo Tanaka, Executive Director of the International Energy Agency (IEA) speaking on world energy trends
• IHS CERA Energy Summit on the energy trilemma of energy security, environmental sustainability and economic competitiveness
• Conferences and trade fairs – covering electricity, electric vehicles, green technology, finance, renewable energy, standards, sustainable cities and smart grids

For more information, visit www.singapore.iew.com.sg

The Brightest Building at Night Competition (BBN) is the first competition in Singapore to select the best buildings with the brightest outdoor and facade lighting at night from 1am to 6am.

Phase 1 of the competition will focus on the commercial buildings in the Central Business District. The organiser of the competition welcomes interested photographers to take photographs of the brightest buildings at night from 1am to 6am, and submit the entries for the competition.

Judges will vote for the brightest building based on the entries and the top 10 buildings will receive recognition. The winning building management will receive a commendation prize for their persistent efforts in lighting up the Singapore night sky even when there is no one around to look at the lights.

The photographers of the winning entries will each receive a special prize. Details on the competition start date and registration will be announced soon.

Image credit: olimohd

The Singapore Tourism Board has just launched a new initiative called Tourism Compass 2020 for Singapore residents and visitors to share their ideas and views for Singapore’s tourism industry by 2020, and contribute to shaping the future of Singapore’s tourism scene.

If you have an idea for the tourism industry, whether it’s promoting our wild places, encouraging ecotourism or making the tourism industry greener, register at the Tourism Compass 2020 website and contribute your ideas before 31 Jan 2010.

Here’s our idea contribution:

SMALL IS BEAUTIFUL

Allow visitors to experience everything small in Singapore, understand how it permeates through everything we do, and learn how we turn it to our advantage.

Every shopping experience in big shopping malls around the world is becoming similar with the same global brands. Why compete with other countries on big shopping malls? Focus instead on small businesses in traditional shophouses. Emphasise the unique experience browsing in a quiet small shop with sustainable, simple, individualised, or one-of-a-kind stuff you cannot find in big malls. It is not about shopping but about exploration – searching for meaning and connection through stuff. Encourage businesses in the small shops to make stuff by hand, to reuse waste materials, to be green in their operations and make green stuff, to turn products into services, or to involve customers in the production of stuff. Nurture green consumers and prosumers.

Singapore cannot compete with other countries on spectacular natural landscape. But we can compete on the rich biodiversity of our flora and fauna. Forsake the building of large artificial gardens and landscapes that are devoid of indigenous species. Focus instead on the biodiversity in our natural habitats. Explore the diverse small species of plants, animals, insects and marine life that make up an ecosystem. Emphasise the easy accessibility and fragility of these small spaces. Protect and cherish them so that visitors can exclaim and wonder how such natural treasures can be found in highly urbanised Singapore.

Singapore does not have the luxury of land, which means we cannot build more bigger tourist attractions. Forget about big luxury tourist spots. Think small quirky mashups. An island attraction that serves as a landfill and as a nature conservation and recreation spot. A Buddhist temple attraction that serves as a cultural and religious experience, and as a showcase of green features such as solar panels, wind turbines and micro hydropower.

Image source: Tourism Compass 2020

Speaker: Mr Richard Werly, European Bureau Chief for Swiss Daily “Le Temps”

Venue:ASEF Conference Room

The European Union is ASEAN’s first overall trading partner and biggest source of foreign direct investments. In 2008, the total trade between EU and ASEAN amounted to € 134.6 billion, and investments from EU to ASEAN have also seen strong growth. With the growing economic partnership, EU and ASEAN have entered into negotiations for an FTA in 2007.Eco-tourism, as a niche sector of Tourism, has been identified as one of the key areas for deeper cooperation.

Thailand, who is eyeing the conclusion of an EU-Thailand FTA, has been sold on the beneficial spillover effects of the FTA on tourism. She is gearing up to explore ways and opportunities for developing sustainable and community-based tourism. As one of the efforts towards developing sustainable eco-tourism, the Thai authorities with the support of UNEP and Greenpeace have commissioned the production of the first guidebook on Ecotourism entitled “Travel Green Thailand”. Besides giving foreign visitors plenty of useful travel advice and tips, the guidebook also highlights the benefits of a stronger EU-ASEAN cooperation in this field of sustainable tourism, importing some of the standards, norms and good practices developed within the European Union. Examples range from “Homestay” accommodation to national parks management.

“Travel Green Thailand” is viewed as a first step of a future Southeast Asian collection of Eco-tourism guidebooks and manuals, making itself a platform for future cooperation between the various stakeholders in the development of a more sustainable, low carbon emissions Tourism. Mr Richard Werly, the main author of “Travel Green Thailand”, will be sharing his insights and perspectives on an area of cooperation that the EU and ASEAN could potentially develop and deepen for sustainable development of the Southeast Asian region.

For registration, visit http://www.eucentre.sg/events.php.

Source: EU Centre