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
The German company Odersun which makes cheap thin-film solar cells that do not use silicon was voted top of the inaugural Guardian/Library House CleanTech 100. Odersun provided solar cells for the roofs of the buildings in Beijing’s Olympic Park. Other companies voted on to the Top 100 list are located here.
Image source: blog.silive.com
A report on CNN today makes reference to a small Canadian company, Element Four, that has developed a machine for producing water by extracting moisture from the air. This principle is not new, and a number of companies have been conducting R & D in this area. The ‘WaterMill’ produced by Element Four is relatively low cost — currently USD1300 — and it may come down to around USD300. Apparently, the WaterMill mounts to the exterior of your house and can produce up to 12 litres a day. On the downside, there has to be relative humidity greater than 35% for this to work. This is good news for people living in Brisbane (where the humidity does not drop below 60% even in the drier months) but the device is of more limited use in places like Cairo where relative humidity is above 35% far less frequently.
Image source: guardian.co.uk
Having grown increasingly pessimistic of late that our political leaders have the capacity to bring about change sufficiently quickly to avoid ecological catastrophe, I’m now of the view that scientific interventions constitute our best hope. The question is: will it be too little, too late. The latest breakthrough (reported in today’s Guardian) is the plan by a physicist at Columbia University to build and demonstrate a prototype within two years that can economically capture a tonne of CO2 a day from the air. This is about the same per passenger as a flight from London to New York. We’ll need a few billion of these to stop us going beyond 450ppm and the initial cost is GBP100,000 per unit!
This article was first published in XL Magazine, volume 3, issue 10, October 2007.
Now the Bush administration has woken up to the fact it has to reduce its dependence on oil – probably due to the geopolitical scene in the Middle East rather than a concern for climate change – it has become very gung ho about biofuel generated from corn. Unfortunately, however, this ‘solution’ creates new problems. While corn has been grown in the Midwest for generations, the farmers are currently rubbing their hands together with glee as corn prices have doubled over the last year or so on account of the heightened demand for ethanol. Naturally enough, they are planting more corn to take advantage of the new market conditions but this means less land to grow other crops. In short, switching to biofuels is likely to raise the price of agricultural produce. This is likely to be a challenge for local politicians as their constituents protest about food prices. More worrying is the impact the new enthusiasm for producing biofuels will have in countries outside of the US – particularly less developed countries – if the competition for land leads to more rapid deforestation and a greater strain on dwindling water supplies. This has been the chief concern of environmentalists who point to countries like Indonesia where rain forest is being felled for palm oil plantations to produce biodiesel.
Image source: allposters.com
I’ve been following the voluntary carbon offsets debate and it’s been a bit controversial because some schemes have turned out to be a flop; e.g. Coldplay’s latest CD and associated world tour was supposed to be ‘carbon neutral’, but they coughed up the cash and the mango tree plantation in Karnataka, India did not live up to expectations! Then it’s a question of where stuff gets planted; i.e. trees in the UK or trees in Thailand? Where do you get more ‘bang for your buck’? The sceptical amongst us tend to pooh-pooh the idea because it simply makes the corporates feel less guilty about their unconscionably high emissions, and so they merrily carry on emitting, not being as incentivised as they might to look at ways of weaning themselves of fossil fuels. From where I’m sitting, I’d rather they emitted and try to offset rather than emit and do nothing, but there is certainly a dire need for some sort of international watchdog to monitor standards; something the UK government elected to act upon recently.
Image source: http://global100.org/
The list of the 2006 Top 100 Most Sustainable Companies was released at the World Economic Forum last Friday, and I must confess to being a little surprised at some of the inclusions. Take British Airways, for instance, how on earth can an airline be identified as being sustainable when it is one of the biggest players in an industry that contributes on such a massive scale to global warming? For example, according to a report in The Observer yesterday: ‘The arguments against flying are compelling. One return flight to Florida produces the equivalent carbon dioxide to a year’s motoring. A return flight to Australia equals the emissions of three average cars for a year. Fly from London to Edinburgh for the weekend and you produce 193kg of CO2, eight times the 23.8kg you produce by taking the train. Moreover, the pollution is released at an altitude where its effect on climate change is more than double that on the ground.’
It would appear as though the methodology employed by Corporate Knights Inc. is a bit suspect. In response to one of the questions in the Global 100 web site FAQ: ‘How can a soft drink company and a weapons company make the Global 100?’, they state: ‘The Global 100 does not discriminate on the basis of how companies earn their revenues. Despite the fact that certain industries face greater social and environmental challenges than do others, some companies within those higher-impact industries may still be strong social and/or environmental performers. We believe that the blanket exclusion of companies based solely on which sector they belong to is a short-sighted approach, as there are no two companies exactly alike.’
Interesting argument me thinks … rather like saying it’s okay to murder so long as you don’t rape and pillage.
The Rt Hon Ian McFarlane, MP
Image source: http://www.abc.net.au/rural/ outlook2002/image.htm
I had to smile the other day when I read that the Australian Energy Minister, Ian McFarlane, was reported to have told a conference organised by the coal industry in Sydney that they should clean up their publicity act, saying the future fuels issue had been taken over by a so-called green media machine. Meanwhile, his buddy, Ian Campbell, the (so-called) Minister for the Environment is trying convince Australian business that it isn’t losing out from the non-ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. As The Australian reported at the weekend, Australian businesses are having to resort to joint ventures with companies from New Zealand (a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol) in order to participate in the Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism project. (See below if the hyperlink is broken.)
There is an interesting piece in The Economist this week that will warm the cockles of industrial ecologists’ hearts. The are moves afoot to use waste cooking oil to power trucks and buses. Having imbibed a fair bit of Hong Kong soot myself on a recent business trip, I shall be monitoring this development with interest. (The full article is reproduced below.)
