By Jochen Kleef, on Ecopoint Asia:

Last week here in Hong Kong, UK officials shared the latest efforts by their Government to shift their economy away from coal and oil towards a more transparent, and in the long term, sustainable model: the low carbon economy.

In contrast to HK, the UK has fully embraced the move towards a different economic model thereby preparing the country for a future of limited resources where everything has to be more efficient and smarter. In doing so, the Government takes on a leadership role that is visionary, and backs this vision with the necessary legislative steps to turn the vision into reality.

Read the full story on Ecopoint Asia

-

Work for a sustainability Business in Asia?

• Get listed on the Business Directory
• Post Jobs on EcoJobs

-

From Triple Pundit:

“The insurance company Allstate uses a lot of paper – in 2009 it used approximately 3.7 billion sheets, equal to approximately 450,000 trees. So it’s not surprising that the company identified paper reduction as one of its top environmental priorities, setting a goal of reducing overall office paper use by 25 percent by 2010. In their latest CSR report, which was released earlier this week, Allstate is revealing that it actually did much better, reducing its office paper use last year by 41 percent.

“Allstate’s plan focused at first on the company’s employees. Setting 208 as the base year, their plan, which was initiated in April 2009, asked employees to make four changes in the way they used paper:

1. Eliminate separator sheets on shared printers
2. Print double-sided whenever possible
3. Not to print unless necessary
4. Recycle used paper.

“The incentive was more than just saving trees – by reducing overall office paper use by 25 percent the company estimated it will generate approximately $1 million in annual savings. By the end of 2009, Allstate already saw a reduction of 21 percent in its office paper use. Another step forward was taken in July 2009, when the Allstate Print Communication Center (APCC) received FSC and SFI certifications, so that when employees do print high-quality documents they do it using a certified paper.

“Encouraged by its in-house effort and success, Allstate turned to examine how it can reduce paper used in the communication with its customers. The company estimated it sends approximately 121 million billing-related documents through the mail annually and it set an ambitious goal of reducing customer paper 20% by 2013 using 2009 as a baseline.

“Allstate approached it by offering customers paperless options such as eBill, an electronic version of a paper bill, and automatic patment plans such as the Allstate EZPay. These electronic options combined with eliminating unnecessary customer bill documents cut customer-focused paper use by 11.8 percent in 2010, compared with their 2009 baseline. Overall, Allstate saved approximately 14 million pieces of paper and listen to this – $7.8 million dollars in print and postage costs! So Allstate is well ahead of its 20 percent reduction target, not to mention the impressive savings it generates, which is all great. On the other hand, you can see why the U.S. Postal Office is heading towards bankruptcy.”

Singapore is home to several financial institutions (including insurance companies), which isn’t a surprise given that the country is basically one giant financial institution in itself. With the money and trade that goes through Singapore (physically through our ports and virtually), financial institutions are necessary to facilitate all the activities going on locally.

A few things stood out to me:

1. They started in-house. Like we’ve always said, changes need to start from within; the ground-up if you will. Often times when we speak with organisations, we highlight the importance of educating their employees. We recommend empowering your employees with ways to make their lives at home more environmentally friendly. This will then translate into a workplace built upon sustainability.
2. This was as much a cost cutting exercise as a CSR move. While some paper – documentation of policies, etc. – is no doubt necessary, I’ve always felt that the industry is wasting way too much paper. I’ve had experience with a few financial consultants in my day, and every experience has left me cringing at the amount of paper they use – explaining the policy, doing the math, the comparisons, showing the current policies held.

While insurance companies housed in our friendly financial hub won’t be able to save the same amount of money that Allstate has achieved, you will be able to save the same percentages easily. Do your own calculations (you are financial consultants right?) and you can estimate how much savings you can expect from starting such an exercise.

Besides, there are already services that can help you with your endeavor to go paperless. I’m not even talking about your iPads and other such expensive devices, I’m talking about services that have been established in aiding companies moving away from the paper.

Take for example GreenPost! From their website (because who better to describe what they do):

“GreenPost has come up with a unique technical solution to go paperless in the most efficient way possible. With its patent pending aggregation framework, it assists billers in going paperless through complete delivery from their online portals or directly from the billing platforms.”

Again, call me. Help me, help you.

As everyone knows, Google had recently disclosed data on it’s energy footprint for the first time. As a person who depends on Google on a daily basis to function, both for work and play (For Google: Search, Chrome, Mail, Calendar, Reader, Analytics, Youtube, Plus, Maps etc), I naturally found these figures very interesting. So interesting that I started thinking about what life would be like without Google.

It sucks.

Now, 1.5 Million tonnes of CO2 sounds like ecological mayhem in itself. But I am willing to state that in relativity (to say, the air travel industry at 3.1 Billion tonnes / year), and in relation to making everyone’s lives easier (this, is a value judgement of course), it isn’t.

Anyway, regardless of whether you agree with  fanboys like us, or disagree and are going to get on the case activist style, we can agree on one thing: The data released is really interesting, or worthy to be on soda bottle caps at least.

Here’s 6 interesting facts / stats from Techland:

Google uses enough energy to continuously power 200,000 homes

Google’s many data centers around the world burn through 260 million watts—one quarter of the output of a nuclear power plant—the New York Times reports. The company had been cagey about revealing energy usage stats in the past, probably because it didn’t want to reveal to competitors how quickly its data centers were growing. It’s no longer a secret that Google needs a crazy amount of data centers to keep things running smoothly.

Google accounts for roughly 0.013 percent of the world’s energy use

Data centers in general are responsible for 1.3 percent of the world’s electricity consumption, according to one estimate, and Google says it accounts for a mere one-hundredth of that statistic. Do the math. The company claims that its data centers are twice as energy-efficient as most others.

One Google search is equal to turning on a 60W light bulb for 17 seconds

Google says it spends about 0.0003 kWh of energy on an average search query, translating to roughly 0.2g of carbon dioxide. Related fact: searching the web 100 times is equivalent to drinking 1.5 tablespoons of orange juice, Google says. That’s hard work!

YouTube can stream for three days on the energy it takes to make a DVD

That stat includes manufacturing, packaging and delivery of the DVD, Google says. One minute of streaming YouTube video consumes 0.0002 kWh of energy, which is about the same amount of energy your body uses in eight seconds.

One year of Gmail is as efficient as a message in a bottle

Google’s just getting silly with this statistic. With the 2.2 kWh that each Gmail user demands per year, Google says you could chug a 750 mL bottle of wine, stuff a letter into it and toss it into the ocean (trip to remote island not included).

Google’s carbon footprint is zero (after offsets)

No, Google doesn’t get all of its energy from wind farms and solar panels. But to make up for the 1.46 million metric tons of carbon dioxide that Google emits every year—mostly from purchased energy to power its data centers—the company buys and generates its own renewable energy or purchases carbon offsets (essentially, funding green efforts elsewhere). The company invests in enough renewable energy to power more than 350,000 homes.

-

1 More from Google: For the energy a single small business uses to host its email locally, approximately 80 businesses could be hosted in the cloud.

(see what I mean about making life easier?)

-

Oh yes, Googles’ green page is pretty neat. It sets the benchmark for corporate green pages for me.

Check it out.

From Chicado Sun-Times:

From GIGAom:

“When hip cell phone startup Amp’d Mobile went bankrupt back in 2007, the company lost its venture capital investors about $360 million. When solar maker Solyndra files for bankruptcy (they’re aiming for next week) it could lose close to three times that amount, or a bit chuck of its VC backers $1.1 billion (we’ll see how much any assets go for). That could make it the largest equity loss for venture capitalists in history.”

From MercuryNews.com:

“Although Solyndra was buttressed by VC and federal money, the company struggled. Among the challenges that doomed Solyndra: Low-cost Chinese manufacturers backed by large subsidies from the government are building massive factories that have rapidly driven down the price of solar panels and shifted more than 50 percent of production to China.”

“Yet analysts also noted that Solyndra had failed to curb its manufacturing costs. Industry watchers pointed out that Solyndra’s solar tubes were still about two or three times as expensive as the standard costs for solar manufacturers in the United States.”

Also note that on top of the estimated $1.1 billion that Solyndra received from its venture capital investors, the company also collected $527 million of the $535 million from the Department of Energy (DOE) grant.

So, you intelligent folks of Venture Capitals, explain to me how the solar industry is such a great investment that you would pump more money into a company that apparently doesn’t have any competitive advantage other than a few hundred million dollars in government funding?

The guys who drew the short end? The 1,100 employees laid off with immediate effect. No pension, no severance, no insurance, nothing. I’m sorry about this screwed up situation you found yourself in. You deserve much better. I hope you find yourself in another company in the sustainability industry soon.

How much money did the CEO draw from 2006?

Why doesn’t VW have a hybrid car of some sort?

It’s a valid question. I mean, they have one of the most efficient engines around. Their multiple award winning “Engine of The Year 2008″ runs on 1.4L, and yet pushes out 122 bhp at 5,000 rpm. Compare this with the 100 bhp pushed out at 5,200 rpm by the Prius’ engine, with another 80 bhp or so equivalent by the “Permanent Magnet Synchronous Motor”.

Now, if you’re not familiar with the history of the hybrid electric vehicle, the first gasoline-electric hybrid automobile in the world was developed in 1900 by Mr. Ferdinand Porsche, who happens to be the founder of Dr. req. h. c. F. Porsche GmbH, Konstruktionen und Beratungen für Motoren und Fahrzeugbau, better known as Porsche Automobil Holding SE.

For those unfamiliar with the automobile industry, Porsche Automobil Holding SE also holds plurality stake in Volkswagen AG, the guys responsible for the VWs you see running around all over the place in Singapore.

Now, I’m a simple man. I don’t know much. I don’t have insider information on anything or anyone. I’m not a big-shot CEO or an engineer, I don’t even own a car. But simple logic dictates that there is something distinctly illogical about the whole situation we have here.

Here are my arguments:

1. As the innovator of the technology powering the world’s preeminent hybrid vehicle, one would imagine that Mr. Porsche would like to see some of his cars using his genius. Also, with a head-start of about 100 years, the fine engineers of Porsche (and I say this without a shred of cynicism or sarcasm) would most definitely be able to come up with a hybrid drive train that would kick the Prius’ behind.
2. Being owned by Porsche SE, one would imagine that the fine guys at VW AG would have access to said technology secretly being developed by the engineers of Porsche. As a result, they would be able to add an electric motor that ups their total power to over 200 bhp, while simultaneously reducing their cars’ emissions by a significant percentage.
3. Having one of the best engines available that one can buy, it only makes sense to improve upon the best to stay ahead of the game, combining the best of all the technologies available in the automobile industry to create the mother of all hybrid cars. I salivate with anticipation.
4. Clean diesel? Really? That’s the technology you’re backing?

Oh wait, they’re already doing it. Forget the entire post. Ignore me.

Social scientist Juliet Schor has a solution that helps with a few problems in the modern world. It’s called the 80% solution – making a four-day work week standard in order to simultaneously reduce unemployment and our environmental footprint.

From Climatide:

Schorr says her idea isn’t as revolutionary as it might seem. Between 1870 and 1973, work hours in several European countries, plus Japan and the U.S. dropped from more than 60 hours per week to the 40 hours we now call full-time. Over the last three and a half decades, Europe and Japan have continued that trend of decreasing the length of the work week. In the Netherlands, four-day work weeks are now the norm.

But the U.S. has been moving in the opposite direction. The average number of hours worked per person has increased by almost 60% since 1973, and we’re now back where we were three quarters of a century ago. Schorr has written two books about the personal, economic, and environmental repercussions of America’s workaholism – The Overworked American, and The Overspent American. She says Americans work more and buy more, but that doesn’t make us happier or healthier. And it contributes to an unsustainable model of economic growth and environmental exploitation.

The solution? Schorr says widespread reductions in working hours would pay out triple dividends.That is, it’s a win-win-win situation:

1. Lower unemployment – Decreasing individuals’ working hours frees up tasks and wages, creating opportunities for new jobs. Schorr argues that dropping working hours is the only way to maintain a growing work force. And between population growth and the fact that working age is extending beyond the traditional 65 years, we certainly have a growing work force that needs jobs.

2. Improved quality of life – Another way of saying ‘four-day work week’ is ‘long weekend’ … every weekend. Schorr says that translates into more leisure time, reduced stress levels, enhanced family life and stronger communities.

3. Reduced ecological impact – Shortened work hours does mean lower household income, and that means less money being spent on ‘stuff.’ That, in turn, means less ‘stuff’ being made using fewer environmental resources. Schorr says that along with reduced work hours comes a shift in the entire economic system, away from manufacturing and consumer spending, toward investment, services, research, and technology.

According to Schorr, the Dutch have generally been happy to trade a 20% drop in income for a 50% increase in time off. If you were offered the option to voluntarily drop to a four day work week, would you take it?

-

I thought about something similar a while back, I had convinced myself that I was onto “The Future of Work”. People were telling me that it made sense, but I (to be honest) didn’t think anyone would be adventurous enough (especially in Singapore) to even consider the idea of allowing a 4 day week. So I put those thoughts back on the shelf.

But now, after reading this…… I feel pretty vindicated that I can back that stuff up with the words of an academic!

It looks like I’ll need to revisit that soon.

From Channel NewsAsia:

“The Singapore Vehicle Traders Association is urging the government to scrap the two percent transfer fee for used cars.”

Admittedly, the Singapore Vehicle Traders Association’s position is an attempt to increase business for the companies that fall under their care, but I too am hopeful that they will gain some traction with this proposal.

Reason? Making it more affordable for people to buy used cars, as opposed to introducing more cars into the transportation system in Singapore, encouraging used car purchase (while the COE and road tax continues to discourage new car uptake) could be the lesser of two evils?

Of course, it would be immensely more awesome if you went with the extensive public transport infrastructure as much as possible.

Would be cool too if someone lobbied for even more subsidies in promoting alternative-energy-powered vehicles. Like this:

Yes, I am still bummed that they are no longer available in Singapore.

Yes, it’s election fever in Singapore, and if you’re like me, you’ve probably been semi obsessively glued to the #sgelections twitter feed. So far, it’s been extremely exciting, but I got even more excited when I came across The Workers Party Manifesto’s Sustainable Development Portion (on pg 55).

Honestly, when I was told about it (thanks mel!), I didn’t really think it’d amount to much. I was expecting some “masak masak” stuff, but as it turns out, this is the real deal: Almost every facet of sustainability is mentioned here, from Biodiversity, Recycling, Renewable Energy, CSR, Food Supply, Green Vehicles to even Noise Pollution.

It’s effectively a wish list for the green minded Singaporean!

-

OK. Enough chatter from me, here’s a cut and paste from the manifesto, enjoy.

(I hope The Workers Party doesn’t mind, and don’t mind the formatting errors)

-

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Preamble

The scarcity of land and resources in Singapore makes sustainability a top priority.While economic development is important, it should not overshadow the importanceof environmental sustainability. A sustainable environment is essential to economic growth. Singapore’s economic development has taken a toll on our natural resources andcreated pollutants in our environment in the process. We are rapidly losing our natural heritage as a result of urbanization and rapid development.While we are mindful of the scarcity of land in Singapore for housing and economicdevelopment, we must balance the needs of urban development and preservingnature.Ecological awareness to protect and preserve our biodiversity is low in Singapore.Recycling is not yet a way of life in Singapore. Increasing recycling rates is key in extending the lifespan of our landfills.

Noise pollution is often a problem in Singapore. We should be mindful to ensure a‘civic and gracious’ social environment.Climate change is a reality, and extreme changes in the weather can be expected infuture. We should be ready to react to sudden changes in the environment.Most of Singapore’s food today is imported. There is little certainty that food suppliescan be sustained through prolonged periods of emergency.

-

Our Beliefs

1. We should encourage research and implementation of the use of sustainable energy and related products.

2. Commercial users should be incentivised to conserve energy and water.

3. Corporations should be encouraged to exercise corporate social responsibilityto protect the environment.

4. A rich ecosystem is necessary for a quality environment, and it is theresponsibility of the government and our people to protect our natural heritage.

5. The government must educate and encourage greater awareness of indigenous flora and fauna, as well as marine life.

6. Natural habitats like the marshland habitats, mangrove swamps and coral reefs,marine animals and wild birds must be protected for our future generations.

7. A clean and healthy environment is also essential to ensure the physical wellbeing of our people. We need to do more to motivate every individual to takeup environmental ownership and to care for the environment as a way of life.

8. The culture of recycling should be imbued from young.

9. There should be a more holistic approach to deal with noise pollution.

10. We have to explore ways to increase our self-suffciency in food supplies.

11. We need to be prepared for extreme weather changes. Contingency plans shouldbe drawn up according to various possible scenarios.

12. We require sustainable energy to ensure water sustainability for the country viatechnologies like NEWater. Energy costs should also be reined in; otherwisewater costs will increase in tandem.

13. Budget should be provided for research into solar power usage for water reclamation plants. A possible investment in offshore water catchments andprocessing plants should be studied.

-

Our Proposals

1. Natural habitats with ecological and educational value should be gazetted aspermanent natural reserves.

2. We need to strive for more regional cooperation to contain environmental hazards such as forest fires or chemical leaks so as not to affect air quality.

3. Plans for projects likely to adversely affect the natural environment shouldbe accompanied by Environment Impact Assessments (EIA) and mitigation plans before they are approved. This is especially important in the case of thefeasibility study on nuclear power use in Singapore. Radiation monitoringcapabilities should also be strengthened in view of this.

4. More programmes should be implemented to encourage local farming. Weshould explore vertical farming or high-rise farming technology to offset theproblem of limited land for food production. We should also further diversifyour food sources to enhance our food security.

5. As an equatorial country, we should explore alternative ways such as fuel celland solar energy to mitigate the worldwide shortage of natural gases and fossilfuel. This has potential to create maintenance and engineering jobs and reduceexpenditure on raw energy resources. We could also export our knowledge andproducts based on fuel cell and solar technology.

6. Green vehicle adoption should be encouraged via price incentives and improvedrefuelling infrastructure support.

7. We can provide tax relief and incentives for companies to encourage innovativeways to recycle waste and increase energy conservation.

8. “Social noise pollution” such as karaoke sessions at home, dog barks andchildren playing at common areas disturbs the comfort of others. We shouldcultivate civic awareness to prevent such noise pollution in a high-densityliving environment.

9. A comprehensive approach including a legal framework and a centralisedagency to regulate noise pollution should be set up.

10. Noise meters should be installed around potential noise pollution ‘hot-spots’,including MRT/LRT rails and roads to ensure noise levels remain within thelegal limits.

11. A dispute resolution mechanism should be set up at the Community DevelopmentCouncil level for greater accessibility.

12. A Climate Change Risk Assessment (CCRA) should be performed to understandthe risk posed to Singapore by climate change. Adaptation policies should becommunicated to citizens. As part of this, a task force needs to perform scenarioplanning for adverse and extreme weather changes. Contingency plans shouldbe drawn up in response to these scenarios.

-

Oh yes, we’ve posted about environmental issues in politics previously, do check that out if you’re interested:

• More green discussions in Parliament, please. No Seriously.
• Will a Green Party Work in Singapore?

-

Majulah Singapura and vote wisely folks!

Even if you are anti “processed food in a package”, I think you’d still appreciate the premise of this, that “We have to think of the whole eating experience—not just the physical product, but what’s actually happening when the consumer eats the product”.

I personally think that this has a lot of other potential palatable applications, but you be the judge.

From WSJ:

PLANO, Texas—Later this month, at a pilot manufacturing plant here, PepsiCo Inc. plans to start churning out batches of a secret new ingredient to make its Lay’s potato chips healthier.

The ingredient is a new “designer salt” whose crystals are shaped and sized in a way that reduces the amount of sodium consumers ingest when they munch. PepsiCo hopes the powdery salt, which it is still studying and testing with consumers, will cut sodium levels 25% in its Lay’s Classic potato chips. The new salt could help reduce sodium levels even further in seasoned Lay’s chips like Sour Cream & Onion, PepsiCo said, and it could be used in other products like Cheetos and Quaker bars.

At an investor conference Monday in New York, the company said it is committed to cutting its products’ average sodium per serving by 25% by 2015 and saturated fat and added sugar by 15% and 25%, respectively, this decade.

The designer salt is one of the latest and most intricate efforts yet by a food company to vault ahead of concerns among government officials about the possible health effects of the widespread use of sodium in processed foods.

Eating too much salt can contribute to high blood pressure, increasing the risk of heart disease. Most Americans consume about twice their recommended limit daily, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Pressure is growing on U.S. food companies to act, because most of the salt Americans consume is in processed foods. In January, New York City, as well as other cities and health organizations, called for restaurants and makers of packaged foods to cut salt 25% within the next five years.

Sodium intake recommendations may also be lowered substantially in new U.S. dietary guidelines this year. And First Lady Michelle Obama is pressing food companies to cut fat, salt and sugar in their products.

The new salt represents PepsiCo’s latest step to cut back on unhealthy ingredients in big sellers like soda and potato chips. The company has also switched from frying its potato chips in transfats to using sunflower oil, and it has boosted spending to $414 million in 2009 from $282 million in 2006 for product development. To lead the research effort, it has hired health experts and scientists, including Mehmood Khan, a former Mayo Clinic endocrinologist, and Derek Yach, a former World Health Organization chronic diseases chief.

By 2015, PepsiCo aims to cut sodium in its salty snacks 25%. “What we want to do with our “fun for you” products is to make them the healthiest “fun for you” products,” Chairman Indra Nooyi said. “We want our potato chips to be fried in the healthiest oils with the lowest salt.”

Cutting salt out of foods is difficult because it adds body to foods as well as enhancing flavor. In addition, little is understood about how salt is perceived on the tongue.

PepsiCo said it has had to dig deeper than other food makers that have reduced sodium by gradually removing salt, using salt substitutes or grinding salt into small particles that contact the tongue in more places.

That’s because salt is one of only three ingredients in Lay’s Classic potato chips (the others: potatoes and oil). Reducing the amount or using substitutes would alter the chips’ flavor, said Greg Yep, a global research and development vice president.

So PepsiCo had to come up with a way to deliver the same saltiness while reducing sodium. Prodded by a U.K. government salt-reduction campaign, it first slashed sodium 25% in its seasoned Walkers crisps in 2006, replacing some of the salt with other seasonings and using smaller salt particles.

But those methods couldn’t be used on plain Lay’s chips, which couldn’t mask the changes with seasonings. The smaller particles gave a hit of saltiness that was intense but too fleeting.

Instead, working with scientists at about a dozen academic institutions and companies in Europe and the U.S., PepsiCo studied different shapes of salt crystals to try to find one that would dissolve more efficiently on the tongue. Normally, only about 20% of the salt on a chip actually dissolves on the tongue before the chip is chewed and swallowed, and the remaining 80% is swallowed without contributing to the taste, said Dr. Khan, who oversees PepsiCo’s long-term research.

PepsiCo wanted a salt that would replicate the traditional “salt curve,” delivering an initial spike of saltiness, then a body of flavor and lingering sensation, said Dr. Yep, who joined the company in June 2009 from Swiss flavor company Givaudan SA.

“We have to think of the whole eating experience—not just the physical product, but what’s actually happening when the consumer eats the product,” Dr. Yep explained.

The result was a slightly powdery ingredient that tastes like regular salt. Small groups of U.S. and U.K. consumers couldn’t tell the difference when comparing the two salts on chips last summer, PepsiCo said. PepsiCo declined to give details while the new salt is in development.

PepsiCo is gearing up pilot manufacturing at its Frito-Lay headquarters so that it can conduct wider consumer testing and fine tune the technology.

It could take two more years before the new salt is introduced, Dr. Yep said. In the meantime, PepsiCo is reducing the salt in new versions of seasoned Lay’s such as Sour Cream & Onion this year by an average of 25% by switching to natural ingredients and rebalancing other flavors so that less sodium is needed.