Climate Resilience
This is the slide deck I presented at the Asia Pacific Centre for Social Enterprise (APCSE), Griffith University, Open Lecture Series this week.
This is the slide deck I presented at the Asia Pacific Centre for Social Enterprise (APCSE), Griffith University, Open Lecture Series this week.
The latest statistics from the Singapore National Environment Agency (NEA) show that the recycling rate in Singapore continues to grow, to the extent that the net generation of waste is about the same as it was in 2000. This is not a bad result but, in a country the size of Singapore, with a growing population, it is critical that people are aware of the importance of managing their ecological footprint.
The high proportion of construction debris that is recycled in Singapore is perhaps the most stunning statistic; a sign, perhaps, that raw materials are becoming more expensive. The recycling of construction materials is certainly becoming a very lucrative business. National performance in the recycling of plastics is less impressive, and in the consumer society of Singapore where plastic packaging is so rife, this is definitely an area for improvement.
Image source: zerowastesg.com
This TED talk is a useful summary of Paul Gilding’s book, The Great DIsruption. Listening to the first half of his presentation, one could be forgiven for thinking that Gilding has thrown in the towel, based on his projected level of doom and gloom. This is not entirely the case. Yes, things do look grim, but Gilding is not nearly as pessimistic as James Lovelock or Clive Hamilton. The book goes into great detail as why he (and his collaborator Jorgen Randers) believe there is a future for humanity with their One Degree War Plan.
I was deeply saddened today to learn of the passing of Ray Anderson, who has been an inspiration to me in my teaching and research in the area of sustainable development for ten years or more. I once had the pleasure of hearing him speak at a business luncheon in Brisbane. An extremely humble man, one cannot fail to be motivated by his message that it is possible to do well by doing good.
Thanks Ray.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sc4HxPxNrZ0]
We live in an increasingly full world. During 2011 we pass the 7 billion mark. This means that world population has more than doubled during my lifetime. When J.F. Kennedy was President of the United States, humankind numbered a mere 3 billion. How has it been possible to sustain such burgeoning population growth? Answer: access to fossil fuel energy that has enabled huge increases in productivity. Back in 1800, before the industrial revolution took hold, production could only sustain 1 billion. Is the globe over-populated by the human species? On the face of it — yes, but not necessarily. The real problem is social justice (or the lack thereof) and failure to live within our ‘ecological budget constraint’. Based on the current business-as-usual model, we exceeded the carrying capacity of the Earth in the mid-1980s. In a non-polluting, renewable energy-fuelled world based on the principles of intra- and inter-generational equity, a population of 7 billion human beings may be sustainable.
Image source: UNEP
The WWF released its latest Living Planet Report yesterday, and I went along in person to the Botany Centre in the beautiful Botanic Gardens here in Singapore to get it from from the Chair of the Board of WWF himself, Dr Christopher Hails.
The launch of the Report was billed as an important precursor to the next gathering of the UN Convention of Biological Diversity scheduled to be held in Nagoya, Japan later this month and I had assumed, therefore, that there would be a focus on biodiversity loss. Instead Dr Hails gave a broad and far ranging presentation that described the general health of the planet (or lack thereof). He certainly did not disappoint and the audience (all of whom, it’s fair to say, could be counted as converts) was more numerous than I expected and certainly well-informed.
One surprise for me was that, for the first time, I was presented with data on the ecological footprint for Singapore. For some reason, Singapore has always been missing from any international league table of ecological footprints. Less surprising, given the passion for consumption in this country, was the world ranking of 21st, each person requiring 5.34 biologically productive hectares to fuel this consumption and dispose of the associated waste. Putting it another way, if everyone in the world lived like Singaporeans, we would need three planets.
Breaking the Singaporean ecological footprint down, carbon emissions is the biggest offender. This came as a surprise to some members of the audience, but Jurong does house one of the top three largest oil refining centres in the world. Then there is the aircon! If the owners of some of the buildings in Singapore turned the thermostat down a notch, maybe a Singaporean lifestyle would only require two planets.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWfb0VMCQHE&feature=related]
This short video produced by Germanwatch highlights the distributional injustice of climate change. Many of the countries with the smallest ecological footprint are those most likely to be affected by climate change (e.g. rising sea levels in Maldives).
Image source: sundancechannel.com
An article in the New York Times last week drew attention to two instances of local governments looking to reduce their ecological footprints in recent weeks. First of all, the Belgian city of Ghent has declared that Thursdays will be a “meatless day” on the grounds that eating vegetarian meals will improve health and reduce the impact of raising livestock on the environment. In Australia, meanwhile, the NSW town of Bundanoon voted to ban bottled water this week to reduce carbon dioxide emissions associated with bottling and transporting the water.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXceWLZq8OQ]
Image source: plan59.com
The headline news in The Observer today is that we have to cut back on meat consumption if we want to get serious about addressing climate change. This ‘controversial’ statement (according to the article) made by the Chair of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and Nobel Peace Prize winner, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, is old news and it is amazing it hasn’t been given the airplay it deserves. Meat production accounts for around 20% of global greenhouse gas emissions from the production of animal feeds, but also from the farts of livestock! A bigger worry is that meat consumption has quadrupled in the last 50 years and is on course to increase even more dramatically as China and India get richer and demand for higher protein diets increases (maybe less so in India given the religious factors governing vegetarianism). Although meat is rich in protein, other good sources are potatoes, whole wheat bread, rice, broccoli, spinach, almonds, peas, chickpeas, peanut butter, tofu (soybean curd), soymilk, lentils and kale. Far more protein per hectare can be produced this way than through raising livestock. Not only this, but far less water is required. According to John Robbins, it roughly takes 60, 108, 168, 229 pounds of water to produce a pound of potatoes, wheat, corn and rice respectively. He reports that a pound of beef however, requires 12,000 gallons of water.
Image source: www.disinfo.com
An article in The Guardian today made me realise that my concern about water supplies (or lack thereof) has been overly country-centric. The headline: Revealed: the massive scale of UK’s water consumption makes reference to the concept of virtual water; that is, water one consumes as a result of consumption of imported goods which require water for their production. Britain ranks 6th in the world, with average household water use for washing and drinking amounting to around 150 litres a person daily, plus 30 times as much in virtual water, used in the production of imported food and textiles.
All this will be of no surprise to those attending this week’s World Water Week forum in Stockholm where access to clean water is being discussed in much the same way as access to oil; it is a finite resource that is running out in some areas and becoming more expensive with obvious consequences for consumer prices. Time to assess our water footprints perhaps.
