This morning, I walked to my favourite neighborhood coffee shop for my morning coffee at about 10 in the morning, which is usually a nice time to be out – the temperature hasn’t risen too much, the numerous awnings along the way provide much needed shelter from the sun’s powerful rays, and there aren’t that many cars/pedestrians (yes, coffee-less Yiqi is a loner).

For some reason, however, by the time I rounded the block to arrive at the coffee shop, I was covered in a thin-but-unmistakable sheen of perspiration. The sun was out in full force, the humidity was stifling as usual, and there were a huge group of people en-route to the coffee shop. That was not a good sign of things to come.

So when I got back to the office, my RSS feed brought my attention to this article from guardian.co.uk:

“Climate Change Scientists Warn of 4C Global Temperature Rise”

“Team of experts say such an increase would cause severe droughts and see millions of migrants seeking refuge”

4 degrees?! Seriously? According to Mr. Kevin Anderson and Ms. Alice Bows from the University of Manchester, “there is now little to no chance of maintaining the rise in global surface temperature at below 2C, despite repeated high-level statements to the contrary”, Mr. Anderson continues to say “moreover, the impacts associated with a 2C (increase) have been revised upwards so that 2C now represents the threshold (of) extremely dangerous climate change”.

I’ve lived my entire life here in Singapore, and yet my body has refused to acclimatise properly. Could be because for most of my waking hours I find myself in one air-conditioned room or another, could be because subconsciously I hate the weather in general, could be because my body hates me. In any case, I am acutely aware of the temperature in general. I cannot, for the life of me, imagine living in an environment 4C higher than it is now; which is a possibility according to the same article, “a rise of 4C could be seen as soon as 2060 in a worst case scenario”. I’m in my late 20’s, which means come 2060 I’ll be in my late 70’s (god-willing) with a host of age-related illnesses; the last thing I need is the world to be a hotter place than it already is!

Of course, the article goes on to explain a host of issues arising from this increase in temperature – drought, desertification, sea-level rise, diseases – but really, without all of that, do YOU, my fellow Singaporeans, want to live in Singapore when it’s 4C warmer?

I’m buying me a place in Canada, or maybe Russia.

From the Green Prophet:

“Middle Eastern Oil Companies to Try Solar CSP to Boost Oil Production”

So according to the article, “natural gas, a much needed fossil fuel, is usually used in a process called Enhanced Oil Recover (EOR), where steam is produced and injected into oil fields to help in extracting oil.”

Am I the only one who sees the irony here?

Irony within the irony: Clean Energy Technology Supplier is selling sustainable energy solutions to the Gulf to help them extract oil.

Please read this post too.

-

The Green Corridor Proposal

Original Source for Proposal here.

Via Wired

(Click thumbs for full size image)

See them all here at Green Patriot.

From guardian.co.uk: “Leonardo DiCaprio made a million-dollar commitment to conserve tigers today as leaders of Russia, China and a dozen Asian nations struggled to put together a finance package to double the wild population of the endangered predator.

The star of Titanic, The Aviator and Blood Diamond announced plans to donate part of his fortune through the environment group WWF to fund anti-poaching efforts, habitat protection and campaigns to raise awareness about the plight of the animal. “

The guy’s an icon. He’s good at what he does (obviously, since everyone wants to pay him millions of dollars to show up in their movie), AND he’s passionate about many many concerns plaguing us today (I don’t need to provide a list do I?).

Now’s he’s basically the celebrity face of this tiger summit in St Petersburg, hosted by the President of Russia, joined by the Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, and a bunch of really important folks from donor countries. Can’t get any more important than that can it?

Did I say I was developing a man-crush? I take it back. I hate this dude.

-

EDIT:

It appears that Russian President Vladimir Putin, has a man crush (for real) on Mr Leo.

Putin says that Leo is a “Real Man“.

Dear Ms Winfrey,

I just read on CNNMoney.com that you’re giving away 275 Volkswagen New Beetles – 2012 New Beetles, which haven’t been revealed, and haven’t been priced – as part of your “Oprah’s Favorite Things” promotion. While I can’t imagine the elation the folks in your studio must have felt (VW is sponsoring the cars, and the tax, and other such fees), I’m feeling a little blue here in sunny Singapore.

I’m not jealous, mind you, I’ve long conceded that I’ll never be found in the audience of your show due to geographical and other such restrictions. I’m a little blue because this should’ve been something more than an extravagant giveaway. This could have been an opportunity for you, as a global icon, to endorse cars of a different nature.

Sure the VW New Beetle is undoubtedly super stylish, suitable for the target audience, but there are other stylish, sexy, GREEN cars. Further, a quick comparison between current VW Beetles and the undisputed (current) leader of hybrid cars the Toyota Prius shows that the Prius would’ve cost only about US$3,000 more, while offering your lucky audience about twice the fuel efficiency. With US Retail Gas prices hovering above the $2.85/gallon mark (National Average), this means the return on investment (the extra $3,000) should be less than 5 years (Assuming the average number of miles driven per year in the US is about 15,000 miles). Rudimentary calculations? Definitely. But you get the idea.

I’m a huge fan of your show, and what you’ve done with the popularity that you’ve garnered over the years, but it feels that this is an unfortunate “opportunity missed” situation here. Maybe next year then?

Sincerely,

James Low Yiqi

As most of us would have heard, train services on the KTM railway track will cease. This follows a land swap deal reached between Singapore and Malaysia.

Although the Singapore Government has not publicised any plans for the 173.7 hectares of land that spans the entire breadth of the island, the question of what to do with it will naturally arise. One proposal, which was submitted by Nature Society (Singapore) on the 21st of October 2010, is  to Keep the Railway Lands as a Continuous Green Corridor.

Here’s the main reasons from the proposal.

1. Connecting Our Green Spaces.

Preserving the Railway Land as a Green Corridor will not only make it possible for Singaporeans to hike from the wetlands in Kranji to Rainforests in Bukit Timah and the hilltops of Henderson through a continuous nature trail; the Green Corridor is also important for preserving our Natural Heritage by acting as a connector for flora and fauna movement across the island, to some extent mitigating the effects of the fragmentation of our Nature Reserves.

-

2. Connecting People

This Green Corridor has the potential to directly or almost directly serve 1.2 million people living in estates along the entire stretch of railway.

There are currently scenic vistas of forests and rivers, canals and wetlands right at our doorstep. The construction of simple walking trails, lighting, resting points and directional signage would make all of this accessible and inviting to hundreds of communities nearby.

-

3. A Clean and Green Transport Route

Singapore aspires to be a leading Eco-City in South East Asia, if not the world. Pollution from urban transportation and traffic jams are common problems in major cities in the world. One way to solve this urban evil is to encourage cycling as an alternative means of transport. Cycling partially solves transportation needs and provides recreation.

-

4. Preserving History

The railway line is a physical historical record of the relationship between Singapore and Malaysia. These 2 countries were once one and the same country called Malaya. There was no border until 1965. This railway line serves as a reminder of this historical fact. The whole stretch of the railway line can be turned into an outdoor ‘museum’ with ‘walking commentary’. Because of its linearity, points of historical interests can be planned along the route to educate the public about life in the 50s, 60s and up to the 70s.

Arguably, some people won’t find this idea attractive. After all, we live in an overcrowding place that is land scarce, and there is a heavy opportunity cost involved in every land decision that is made. So before the development junkie and progress obsessed side of us starts ringing the alarm bells, please consider first, what we stand to lose.

The Railway Lands is something that was carved out of unique historical circumstances. It is also a rare occasion in urban Singapore, where politics had allowed for the unhampered growth of a lush ecology, relatively untouched by the urbanisation around it. It is part of our relatively young heritage, and it’s value is something that cannot be replaced by any amount of engineering.

Oh yes, here’s what I came across on SG Polls:

(Disclaimer: I’m not saying that this is statistically indicative of the Singapore population)

-

What can I do?

1. Read the proposal – The Green Corridor: A Proposal to Keep the Railway Lands as a Continous Green Corridor

2. Send your feedback and suggestions to Nature Society (Singapore)

3. Like the “We support The Green Corridor in Singapore” Facebook page.

4. Follow them on Twitter.

5. Most importantly, tell everyone you know about the proposal.

Not for the money, or the welfare. No. I want access to Google’s Gfleet. Currently sitting pretty at 30, it’s about to explode to satisfy its “2,600 members”.

Beyond that fact that I believe Google might one day own ~50% of the world’s economies, they are just too cool. Seriously. Their employee benefits are comprehensively through the roof – they have free meals, an on-site Doctor, financial planning classes, car servicing, massage therapist, the list goes one – and I’m pretty sure renumeration’s pretty decent as well.

But now they have their own car sharing programme. That’s like the local NTUC Income Car Co-operative, except it’s for Google’s peeps only. And they’re tying up with up-and-coming vehicles, not just run-of-the-mill Toyota Hybrids or Ford Escape (not available in Singapore. In fact, the Ford Fusion Hybrid should be guys!), but cars that have just made their debut at Auto Shows and such.

I’ll fly to Mountain View on my own expense. See, I’m not all that greedy. Just make sure I’m on top of the list of car-sharing members.

I refer to the rant article on The Sunday Times (21st November 2010) “Being green makes me blue” by Fiona Chan.

Like a Super Villain

Fiona Chan from SPH has a problem.

She feels blue from being green. The reason for this is that she feels condemned by environmentalists when she does not live more sustainably. She laments that “it would be nice if, on the occasions that I do choose convenience over the environment, I’m not made to feel like some kind of super villain bent on destroying the world“.

She then goes on to list out the stuff that she doesn’t do, and how that makes her feel guilty. One example, she cannot accept the idea of reading her work stuff from a screen, as opposed to printing them out. She fears that the computer monitor would wreck her eyesight.

That being said, she claims to admire “true-blue environmentalists who practice what they preach“. Specifically, she relates, “I  respect how they eschew motor vehicles and cycle to work, then forgo a shower in the name of saving water and spend the rest of the day sweatily triumphant about their tiny carbon footprint. I respect them but I probably won’t sit next to them”.

She goes on to say that she does not get “so-called environmental experts or numerous self professed tree-hugger celebrities, who earnestly and self-righteously enjoin people to care more about the Earth – and then hop onto their privately chartered jets to the next green conference“. (No examples posted though.)

OK, she probably has some good points here.

We all know that some environmentalists tend to exude a Greater Than Thou air about them – Maybe it’s from cycling in the hot tropical sun, not cool. They also tend to assume the archetype of a preacher, or worse, a naggy parent -  It’s not pleasant when we’re suddenly transported back to our childhood, where everything we did was kind of wrong.

This can get annoying, we know. Doubly more when the preaching is not practiced, no one likes hypocrisy in any dosage. So perhaps environmentalists (and everyone else) should take her article as a good critique of their seemingly unpalatable communications methods.

Or maybe they just need to chill out in some air-conditioner-blasting-at-18-degree-Celsius comfort. After a shower, that is.

-

Making a Molehill out of a Mountain

However, it’s the last few paragraphs that could be a source of (deliberate or not) potential misinformation that has to be addressed, especially since this appeared in The Sunday Times. Specifically, she makes the following claims:

“All that said, I am probably no different from the green evangelists in one respect – I am making a mountain out of what is, effectively a molehill. There are plenty of other unsolved problems in this world: Starving people, physically abused women, apathetic youth, and bad grammar. Saving the planet just happens to be the flavour of the decade“.

Yes, there are plenty of other unsolved problems in this world, but let’s not trivialise environmental ones, because they are serious and real issues that have bearing on a lot of other concerns to humanity.

Former UN secretary-general Kofi Annan once wrote that, “Human health depends, to a larger extent than we might imagine, on the health of other species and on the healthy functioning of other ecosystems”. As cited in Global Biodiversity Outlook 3, the earth’s biodiversity (i.e. all species of life, Oak Trees included) “provide a wide range of services to human societies“. “The provision of food, fibre, medicines and fresh water, pollination of crops, filtration of pollutants, and protection from natural disasters are among those ecosystem services potentially threatened by declines and changes in biodiversity“.

In Asia Pacific (From Asian Development Bank), changing climate conditions are likely to result in water stress, and a decline in irrigated agriculture “with declines over the next 40 years in the production of rice (14 – 20%), wheat (2 – 44%), maize (2 – 5%), and irrigated soybean (9 – 18%)”. When coupled with projections that the Asian population will grow by about 70% to 2.6 Billion, don’t you think we have a humanitarian problem as well?

The point that I’m trying to put across is that Environmental problems are also development, and human problems; It’s a lot more than, in Fiona Chan’s words “attending Greenpeace concerts and hugging oaks“. There are a lot of people that are getting down to serious work in research, policy development, campaigning for change, and even in developing greener products – just so we don’t need to be that inconvenienced by being green.

Maybe we need to hear more about these efforts in the media instead…?

-

It’s just the environment?

That being said, Fiona Chan’s article was very illuminating for me because it points out a deeper issue about how environmental concerns have been framed here in Singapore: That they’re just environmental concerns.

What is portrayed, is the classic case of detachment between what we consider the human (or developed) world, and the natural world. Let’s not be forgetting that “The Planet” is not somewhere, out there, over the hills and far away. It’s right here, there, wherever you’re reading this from; We’re living in it.

Although “Green” may be interpreted as being a fashionable trend because of above mentioned sweaty cycling green people, at its core is a very simple message: It is the realisation about the limits of our planet’s natural systems. It is about how our human systems are bound by these limits. It is about how we need to change our systems, behaviour and factor in ecological concerns into the decisions we make.

You really don’t have to hug a tree to appreciate any of that.

-

At the end of the day, the environment does fine without us.

It is us humans that need the saving.