This begs the question of how far the government is willing to go to commit to environmental sustainability. Have we given up all hope and climate change and is the setting up of the various environmental and climate change framework, including the National Climate Change Secretariat, under the Prime Minister’s Office all but a faux? Clearly we are not what we thought we are.

P.S. Besides Huaneng which owns the plant, companies which tap on the dirty fuel source should also be noted, they are, Lanxess, Dairen Engineering, Asahi Kasei and Zeon Chemicals.

To the pragmatic environmentalist like me, and my dear friend Joe, who’s out in India for a noble cause, Earth Hour is but a mere marketing scam. But it also serves as a reminder that we are suffering from more than the excessive use of energy, we are also suffering from the excessive use of lighting.

During this hour tonight, across the world, we will probably end up discharging more carbon into the atmosphere despite the reduction in electricity use from the grid. Power stations across the world that are powered by crude oil, will continue to churn the energy we require based on forecasted estimates. Yet, WWF’s Dance to Power Earth Hour has generators – albeit biodiesel ones, as backups to the likely underpowered event.

Despite being really wasteful, I hope that people attending Earth Hour, as well as the guest Minister could take home more than just the experience of darkness. Real action is needed. Even as the world screams Earth Hour, I’m overlooking a well lit street, a well lit park, and a well lit school. The latter two, severely under utilized – it’s a damn Saturday!

You may think that I’m overreacting over some lights, but do you know that besides the excessive use of energy, light pollution has more than a part to play in climate change? Scientists have confirmed that the night does more than giving us a breather from the heat, it actually helps to neutralize the dust and carbon in the air. I’ll share the article again when I find it. But for now, I shall remain in the attic with every single power source – other than my iPad – turned off to commemorate this moment in history. This shall be my pledge for Earth Hour, my pledge for Mother Earth.

Here goes:

=======================

Fellow citizens of the blue planet,

I’ve dedicated my career to the sustainable business movement. At present, I serve as the global head of sustainable innovation for a $3B company, and teach MBA students as an adjunct professor of sustainable entrepreneurship.

How do you make a dent in the most critical issue of our times? Here are the most important actions you can take, ranked by highest impact. I’ve used a breakdown of US carbon sources to represent global (industrialized-world) environmental impacts.

1.  Electricity: 34% of total emissions
The main sources of electricity in the home are air conditioning, followed by refrigeration, heating, clothes drying, and your television. Turn the thermostat down in winter and up in summer, and practice efficiency for the others. Wash in cold water and line dry when you can. If you pay for your electricity, you can request to buy a percentage from renewable sources, sometimes even at no cost to you.

2. Transportation: 27%
a) Flying
My work flight to Paris last week itself exceeded the carbon emissions of a typical Indian over an entire year (1.5 tons). When I can’t avoid flying, I purchase carbon offsets, which fund projects that remove an equivalent amount of carbon from the atmosphere. Offsetting my Boston-Paris roundtrip flight, for example, costs about $18 — about 2% of the flight cost. I buy offsets from TerraPass, a reputable offset company; google “terrapass carbon footprint calculator”.

b) Driving
Another major source of emissions is our car travel. I love my Prius and believe in electric/hybrid cars. To allay a common fear, the batteries are not significant factors; they are 100% recyclable at end of life, and in any case, more than 80% of the total impact of an automobile is the fuel source. Consider also living near your work/school so that you commute less.

3. Industry: 20%
I’m a firm believer free-market innovation, but many environmental costs are business externalities — that is, business incurs these costs, but society (taxpayers) pay them. Carbon is the classic externality, making the atmosphere our greatest “tragedy of the commons”. Write to your government leaders to urge action, especially climate change legislation (thanks for leading here, France and Australia). A US governor once told me that for every 1 call/email she got, she assumed 15 or 20 constituents shared the same belief.

4. Commercial & Residential: 11%
Vote with your dollars by practicing preferential buying behavior for greener products. Do your research on claims and eco-labels (see ecolabelindex.com), but don’t be afraid to try to do good and refine your choices later. For example, should you choose organic or local foods? Both turn out to benefit the environment for different (sometimes competing) reasons. Pick your strategy and go for it. As Yogi Berra said, “when you come to a fork in the road, take it.”

5. Agriculture: 7%
The choice of the food we eat has tremendous impact, especially protein. I’m not a vegetarian, but I’ve developed a rule for myself: I eat meat once a day, beef once a week, and lamb once a year. I count fish as half of a meat; download the Monterey Bay Aquarium’s “Seafood Watch” app and ask questions at seafood restaurants about where the fish comes from. For me, this is the right combination of carbon-frugality with something I’ll actually stick to; find a way to reduce your own meat consumption. To learn the basis of my rule, google “ewg meat eaters guide eat smart”.

“Anything else you’re interested in is not going to happen if you can’t breathe the air and drink the water. Don’t sit this one out. Do something. You are by accident of fate alive at an absolutely critical moment in the history of our planet.” -Carl Sagan (often attributed)

Please feel free to ask and challenge.

Cheers,
Asheen Phansey
Boston, MA USA
asheen+listserve@gmail.com

To be honest, I never knew that Bukit Brown was known as Bukit Brown, I’ve always thought it to be the Lornie Road Cemetery. That said, I knew the place existed, and is also rife with traditional Chinese cultural activities that I may or may not agree with. Proof? An old article by the Straits Times on cars parked along Lornie Road during the Chinese “Qing Ming” festival of tomb sweeping, where Chinese pay their respects to their ancestors with a visit to the tombs. Perhaps the internet is now flooded by articles about Bukit Brown, so much so that cars parking alongside Lornie Road is no longer of importance, or that Google has failed on me – I can’t find that article!

If you’ve asked me just over a year ago if the damages done by the plans to build the highway could be mitigated after it was being built with more tree planting, I would naively say yes. But having learnt the characteristics of carbon sinks, and the different types of tree planting, I would contest such a move. Over the past year, I’ve learnt a lot – the tree you see along the streets are not the same as those found in woodlands (not Woodlands!), and quoting a phrase I learnt at the Biosphere – Mother Nature is very resistant, some species will still remain after everything else falls apart, but we humans may not be there to see it. So yes, go ahead and remove Bukit Brown, but when you’ve done that, do not regret the ecological impact you may have failed to predict.

For now, I need some comments on these posters and decide which is better!

Since I returned from my trip, I’ve been pondering through my thoughts on how I could put that art work to use. And that was how the “If only” series was born. Let’s hope it doesn’t end here, and here is a draft of my work:

I appreciate all fair comments to help me improve on this poster!

[03/27/12 - Just updated it again! Thank you all for the feedback!]

Dear Mr Leong
Thank you for your request.
We note the purpose of the signs.  However, we are concerned about the safety of road users.  Advertisements such as signs displayed along public streets  distract road users and pose safety hazards to them.  In addition, they clutter the streetscape.  In this respect, we are unable to display the signs along Penang Lane.
Please feel free to contact me for clarifications.  Thank you.
Lame-O-Guy
Road Infrastructure Management
Road Operations & Community Partnership
Land Transport Authority

I’m kidding about the name – but the rest of the message, has been copied in its entirety. I replied to the message, but never received any reply. So it surprised me that sometime ago, MediaCorp launched a moving billboard – literally. Touted as a new Out-of-Home (OOH) platform, the “On-The-Move Billboard”, features three large display panels: 7.3m x 3m on two sides and 2.1m x 3m on the rear.

You may laugh at the thought, but do you know, that the climate change you experience today is a result of the doings of the past generation? Climate studies focus on a classical period of 30 years, which could mean that what we are experiencing today, is likely a result of a build-up of “sins” of the past 30 years. Yes, go ahead and blame your parents or the you 30 years ago, but bear this in mind, your children and yourself of the future will be casting the same blame on you if you do not take any action now.

In the movie 2012, we saw a world, indifferent towards everything else but preserving the future of mankind – must we wait for such a day before we reconsider our actions? In the movie, our chaotic world calmed after 2 months of violent weather, and all refugees were returned to land where they find a new world awaiting them. Will we be able to do the same if we turn our world upside down?

Our government is constantly going  on about how much it did for our environment, but quizzed further about the exact positive impact it has created, how much it has spent to positively combat climate change, it remains mum, and points to the economic sustainability we have to maintain. What is the use of having so much money in reserves, if we are never going to spend it? Are the figures in the bank better to look at or a better environment we can live comfortably in, more important?

Our obsession with instantaneous wealth has led us to ignore the fact that failing to be green, eventually erodes our wealth. The extra load brought about by the myopic decisions to keep policies less stringent and leave environmental initiatives to the private sector will only amass greater costs in the future. Our hunger to maintain easy economic growth through fancy buildings, cars, and even people i.e. population surge, will only hamper the healthy growth of our people. What makes us economically comfortable does not necessarily make us environmentally so and we eventually have to spend more to maintain that lifestyle.

Recently at an environmental awards ceremony, Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, Vivian Balakrishnan mentioned that young people are more aware about the environment, and are more active proclaiming their causes for the Earth. Yet, in a study done before the General Election, statistics show that the environment ranks among the least important concern of young voting Singaporeans. The same opinion echoes through the audience at a recent forum I attended where grassroots leaders vote for the top concern they want the mayor to address.

Perhaps, there really is an increase of awareness for the environment, but the focus has always been too small to begin with, there just isn’t any impact. Obviously, the pace of our move towards  a greener lifestyle has not been able to match that of nature. Because combating climate change requires more than just plain gimmicky marketing and awards, we are doomed for good if we choose to be obstinate about dollars and cents over common sense.

Photo by Andrew*’s on Flickr

Each year, 6 billion of these plastic cards are produced worldwide

I was at an IT fair recently when I signed up for my first credit card – sometimes I think to myself, how are credit cards related to such fairs? Although I’ve been using credit and debit cards for many years, that day was the first time I’ve signed up for a credit card on my own. I was amazed at how easy it is to obtain a credit card despite having started on my job for only 2 weeks.

Each time I walked past a banks’ booth, its credit card officers will come up to me and shove a copy of the banks’ brochure in my hands. One of the banks in particular had 7 credit cards in its brochures, each with different features for my pick. I could have applied for every single card it offered that day without paying a single cent.

I then asked the credit card officer what is the purpose of having that many cards, to which he replied, they serve different purposes and target groups. If that’s so, why am I eligible for every card out there? In fact, less with the design and privileges of the different cards, I can’t spot any other difference with them. In that case, why can’t they simply combine the privileges of all these cards into one? They all belong to the same bank anyway.

In the end, I applied for 3 cards from that particular bank. One gave me the discounts of lifestyle facilities, while the second, the convenience of taking public transport, and the last because the credit card officer said, take a MasterCard (the other 2 were Visas). Initially excited over the benefits, I was only stricken with guilt when the packages arrived just yesterday. Not only did the packages come with thick stacks of brochures, there was also an additional card for a ready credit line which I did not remember signing up for.

According to statistics obtained by Sierra Club, the annual production of cards totaled over 6 billion worldwide. Enough to form over 50 stacks the height of Mount Everest, or even reach the Moon! Made of Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC), these cards last forever in landfills around the world. Yet, no one seems to take notice of the damage credit cards are doing to our economy and our environment. Perhaps its monetary benefits to GDP figures outweigh that of economic stability, or perhaps its convenience outweigh that of its environmental damage, but one thing for sure, its use is here to stay.

While Sierra Club noted the indifference in attitude of issuers such Visa, MasterCard, JP Morgan-Chase, there is still a lot a consumer can do. First and foremost, stop applying for credit cards which you do not need. One less card in a market where each consumer holds an average of 3.5 cards makes a difference. You may also want to look out for cards with annual fee waiver for at least 5 years (the lifespan of a typical card), unless you are very sure that the waiver will be carried forward every year. Although not exactly measures that will prevent more plastics from being released into the pool of growing economies, these actions will at least help to minimize our carbon footprint and hopefully mitigate a climate crisis.

With the incoming wave of Near-Field Communication (NFC) technologies promising more convenience for credit payment with mobile phones and stickers, are we also seeing the end of these rectangular plastic cards? Then again, mobile phones also pose the problem of electronic trash as each model gets refreshed every 6 months to a year. The only solution then, is to limit our appetite of wants over needs.

Besides the environmental damages resulting from the depletion of our forests, junk mail can also be a nuisance to our living environment. A recent post Facebook by opposition MP Pritam Singh, clearly shows the extent of the problem. In the post, he asked residents for their cooperation in keeping the estates clean – an issue which was also brought up by the Prime Minister- and posted photos of areas where he found trash lying around. Not surprisingly, the letter box area was filled with a sea of flyers. While the Housing Board has tried to alleviate the problem by installing locks to the flaps - only the postman has the key – and creating a boundary for the trash, Singpost’s Admail did nothing to help. In fact, it made things simpler for advertisers by offering to send the junk mail for them, betraying the right of access given to the postman.

So instead of making things simpler for the advertisers, we should use every possible mean to discourage the printing of flyers. To start off, the Ministry of Information Communication and the Arts should implement a National “no junk mail” database. This, will alert advertisers of people who do not wish to receive advertisments in their mail, eliminating the redundancies of sending to people who would eventually dump the flyers. Registrants  will also be issued a sticker to be affixed on the mailbox to alert advertisers that they do not wish to receive any flyers.

As a “fine” city, it is without a doubt that such a policy will come with a fine for offenders. Offenders who flout the restrictions for more than 5 units a month will be liable for charges and fines. The goal is to eventually eliminate the use of printed flyers, saving our trees and keeping our neighborhoods clean. And just like the water conservation tax levied on excessive use of water, we could implement a “tree-conservation” tax. The amount to be varied in an incremental way, will help to reduce excessive printing, especially for promotional activities.

The proposals mentioned may not be easy to implement – no new policy is ever easy. Yet, it is an important step towards a cleaner and better environment for everyone.

This it seems is not enough for environmentalists around the world. It seems that environmentalists around the world have tried hard to designate at least a day every month as an “environment day”. Just to name a few: there’s Earth Day (April 22), Earth Hour (last Saturday of March), World Environment Day (June 5), etc. Not that such commemorative days aren’t good, but surely environmentalists understand the meaning of “economies of scale”? By pushing for relatively similar messages through such campaigns seems like a waste of resources that could have been better spent. In fact, I did a search on the difference between Earth Day and World Environment Day (WED), found out that the main difference between both campaigns is simply the initiator. While WED is backed by the United Nations and has been around since 1972, the Earth Day kicked off in 1969 from the United States. Other than that, both campaigns share relatively the same objectives.

As an environmentalist myself, I am totally against replicating similar movements. Not only is it a waste of resources, it dilutes the message as the impact of each message starts to dwindle. However, this isn’t what made me so pissed today. Lately, I developed a habit of collecting environmental related articles from newspapers for my scrap book, and while I was looking through the pages of a certain tabloid, an advertisement caught my eye. The advertisement by French hypermarket chain, Carrefour, was promoting “Go Green with Carrefour” on World Environment Day 2011. The event supported by local environmental big wigs, the National Environment Agency and Singapore Environmental Council promoted the use of reusable bags, rechargeable batteries and LED table lamps.

As perfect as the advertisement tries to be, it was a major disappointment in my opinion. Besides the promotion for the rechargeable batteries and LED table lamps, Carrefour also advertised the sale of 2 other products: Russet Potatoes from the USA, Danone Mineral Water. Ironically for the promotion that aims to bring environmental awareness to our shoppers, Carrefour didn’t seem to realize that promoting bottled drinks ain’t helping the environment at all. Furthermore, I wonder how environmentally conscious one can be if he/she chooses to eat potatoes that traveled half way around the world. Not only does this look bad on Carrefour, it also undermined the support given by the NEA and SEC.

I’m not sure whether I’m the only one who found these inappropriate, but I certainly do hope that Carrefour will review it’s policy on such marketing efforts. As for the organizations which play a supportive role of such events, the time has probably come for more stringent checks on whether partners have tried to unfairly profit from each campaign, and possibly lead them towards the right direction. It is one to lend a good name in support of a good cause, but to allow a good “non-profit” name to be tarnished by profiteering intentions is simply not worth it.