Green Future Solutions Launches Bookchanging – Singapore’s First Website for Green Books

Green Future Solutions launched its latest website, Bookchanging, on 17 December 2009. This new website is the sixth in Green Future Solutions’ network of websites, which includes AsiaIsGreen, Green Business Times, Zero Waste Singapore, Low Carbon Singapore, and TEDxGreen.

Bookchanging is an online community for book readers to find, enjoy, share, discuss and buy green books. You can read environmental books to gain more knowledge, work towards a sustainable future and change the world.

Under the New Books category, you can find the latest books on the environment, including Al Gore’s Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis, and Colin Beavan’s No Impact Man: Saving the Planet One Family at a Time.

Under the Recommended Books category, you can check out our book recommendations, which includes Alex Steffen’s Worldchanging: A User’s Guide for the 21st Century, and Janine M. Benyus’s Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature.

You can also choose to buy the book in Singapore from Bookchanging or buy the book overseas from Amazon. Visit http://www.bookchanging.com to check out our books.

Images

Download the Bookchanging logo:

Download the Bookchanging badges here.

Contacts

Eugene Tay

Founder of Bookchanging

Email: eugene@greenfuture.sg

Social Media: LinkedIn | Facebook

About Green Future Solutions

Green Future Solutions is a Singapore-based business that promotes environmental awareness and action for a green future, through its network of green websites, events, presentations, publications and consultancy. For more information, visit http://www.greenfuture.sg.

Malaysia POWERGEN 2010

Event Title: MALAYSIA POWERGEN

Event Date: 15-16 March 2010

Venue: The Ritz Carlton, Kuala Lumpur

Country: Malaysia

Realising the increase in energy consumption, Malaysia continuously reviews its energy policy. The crucial challenges of the Malaysia power sector are sustainability, security and reliability of energy supply from energy resources – mix of non-renewable and renewable energy for long term sustainable development. This Conference assesses the implications of these challenges and how it translates into strategic growth, business and investment opportunities.

Themed “Seizing Investment, Partnership and Project Development Opportunities & Overcoming Challenges in Malaysia Power”, Malaysia PowerGen Conference is meeting of minds of the industry leaders and regulators from Malaysia and around the region to discuss the current state of Malaysian Power sector, to determine the future of the industry and to explore growth opportunities for both foreign and local entities.

Contact Person: Ms. Weny Thong

Email: weny.thong@abf.com.sg

Phone: +65 6536 8676

Organiser: Asia Business Forum

Environmentalism in Singapore: Dead or Alive?

I don’t really bother about going green because most of my friends are not doing it. I will switch off the lights when I leave the room but only when I’m reminded to. – a 20-year old Secretary (Street View, The Sunday Times, 13 Dec 2009)

This is perhaps our most difficult writing because it could offend some friends and fellow environmentalists. We are not putting down the good work done by the various environmental NGOs and groups. We are not saying that environmentalists are doing the wrong things. We admit that we are not entirely familiar with all the work done by the local environmental NGOs and groups. We could be wrong or ignorant. But we simply wish to share what we think about environmentalism in Singapore.

What is Environmentalism?

Let’s first define environmentalism. The usual definition is:

Advocacy for or work toward protecting the natural environment from destruction or pollution – Dictionary.com

The typical environmentalist sees humans as the problem causing harm to the environment and the urgent need to save the earth. We think environmentalism is all about saving human civilization. The planet does not need us to save; it will do just fine without us. We are just trying to save ourselves so that we can continue to stay on this planet. And this can only be achieved with co-existence with nature, which we are a part of and dependent on.

Therefore, our definition of environmentalism is:

Playing an active role in voicing, creating and shaping how humans live and co-exist with nature

Environmentalism should be about defending and protecting what’s left, but more importantly it should also be about speaking up, creating and shaping the green future where we live our lives without or with less impact on nature. Environmental groups and environmentalists are the voice, creators and shapers of our green future.

Is Environmentalism in Singapore Dead or Alive?

What do we mean if we say that environmentalism is dead? We are not implying that environmental groups and environmentalists will actually die, cease to exist, give up or disband. We are implying that the current way of doing things by environmental groups and environmentalists, will result in a failure to voice, create and shape the green future we want to see. This failure will lead to the death of environmentalism.

If we fail to actively speak up, create and shape our green future, we have failed as environmental groups and as environmentalists. If the future happens to us instead of us creating our future, then environmentalism has not served its purpose and is considered dead.

This brings us to our question: Is environmentalism in Singapore dead or alive? We think it is alive but could be dead if we carry on business-as-usual. There are two factors that could cause the death of environmentalism in Singapore. Most of the local environmental NGOs and groups 1) adopt the issue-approach and 2) lack an open voice.

Environmentalism and the Issue-Approach

In Singapore, most environmental NGOs and groups are generally focused on a specific issue. It is easier and more effective for organisations to focus on a single environmental issue, and try to find solutions and change mindsets. Nothing wrong with that. In fact, local environmental NGOs and groups have achieved success with this issue-approach, improving awareness and action on nature conservation, marine and wildlife protection, river and beach clean-up, promoting vegetarianism, etc.

When it comes to protecting nature and its biodiversity, local environmental NGOs and groups have been vocal and active.

The Nature Society (Singapore) is at the forefront of nature conservation with several achievements:

From the NSS website:

• Successfully persuaded the Government to set aside Sungei Buloh as a mangrove and bird sanctuary. This site is now legally protected and known as Sungei Buloh Wetlands Reserve.
• Relocated coral reefs which were threatened by land reclamation.
• Staved off plans to develop part of Peirce Reservoir forest into a golf course.
• Published the Master Plan for the Conservation of Nature in Singapore, which has influenced Government policy and planning.
• Advocated the preservation of Chek Jawa, a unique marine habitat on Pulau Ubin.

Wildsingapore has brought our marine ecosystems and marine diversity to life, with description and photos of the various marine habitats and biodiversity, and coverage of environmental news.

Other NGOs and groups are actively involved in the conservation, protection and education of nature, wildlife, and marine habitats:

• Animal Concerns Research and Education Society
• Nature Trekker Singapore
• Toddycats! with the Raffles Museum of Biodiversity Research
• The Green Volunteers
• Jane Goodall Institute (Singapore)
• Blue Water Volunteers
• Team Seagrass
• Naked Hermit Crabs
• Waterways Watch Society

Nevertheless, there are also other NGOs and groups that focus on diverse and multiple issues such as waste minimisation, energy, climate change, sustainable businesses, green consumerism, etc.

Singapore Environment Council (SEC) is a major player in the environmental scene and work closely with the government. SEC is involved in several environmental conservation and sustainable development programmes that are categorized into industrial, educational and community programmes.

Environmental Challenge Organisation (Singapore) is a growing not-for-profit social enterprise providing youths with a holistic approach towards environmental issues, and encouraging youths to take initiative and choose to live environmentally sustainable lifestyles.

Environmentalism and the Lack of an Open Voice

The style of environmentalism in Singapore is influenced by the government’s style of governance, which can be described by Maria Francesch-Huidobro’s book, Governance, Politics and the Environment, as one of disciplined governance. A disciplined governance approach is “a consultative yet strategically contained process that is not fully participatory”. She added:

In relation to the nature of the relationships between the government and environmental NGOs, the governance approach envisions partnerships. The nature of these relations, as deduced from the country and case studies, is better explained as a patronus-libertus relationship; that is, one between a patron and his freed slave, elicited by a “disciplined” approach to governing. Although interactions between state and environmental civil society have developed trust and cohesion, and these, in turn, are building social capital that increases the density of civil society, civil society is in itself far from an equal partner. Carefully engineered public consultation exercises and meetings behind closed doors are used by the government to diffuse opposition and to claim that decisions were made after “consulting”.

As such, environmental NGOs and groups tend to be cooperative and do not openly speak up against the government’s environmental policies. NGOs hardly issue public statements to the media and on their websites, about their opinions and feedback on government policies.

Of course, some NGOs do speak up, such as The Nature Society providing reports and feedback to the government (however, those are usually on single issues like nature conservation and marine habitat protection). And other NGOs also do provide feedback and suggestions to the government (however, this is usually behind closed doors and their views are not heard by the public).

Consequences and Examples

As we mentioned earlier, the issue-approach adopted by current environmental NGOs and groups has been successful so far. However, this approach is inadequate in light of complex environmental challenges like climate change and building a Sustainable Singapore. Complex challenges involve multiple issues that are interconnected and has to be viewed in a holistic approach and not tackled one issue separately at a time.

In addition, complex challenges give rise to diverse solutions and viewpoints. The public need a trusted voice to openly debate government policies, provide opinions so that the public is more informed, and give recommendations to create and shape a green future. If current environmental NGOs and groups do not speak up openly about their views, the public will just be over-reliant on the government and be apathetic.

Here are some examples of the issue-approach and the lack of an open voice:

1) Andy Ho, a Senior Writer from The Straits Times (most widely-read national newspaper in Singapore) recently wrote that Singapore should be slow to sign up to any emissions cap, and attempted to show that the scientific evidence on man-made global warming is not clear-cut, which he based on misleading claims and references.

The response from environmental NGOs and groups is almost non-existent with no public statement release to refute his claims. Why are there no response from them? It could be that the NGOs and groups with the single issue-approach do not usually respond to topics like climate change as it is not within the scope of their own issue. How about those NGOs and groups that focus on diverse issues, including climate change? They did not issue any open statements to refute the misleading claims.

2) Another example is the construction of a “clean coal” and biomass power plant by Tuas Power at Jurong Island (to be completed by 2012). The power plant is likely to generate more carbon emissions as compared to a natural gas-fired plant. Usually, a “clean coal” plant would refer to the use of carbon capture and sequestration technology, in this case, there are no such plans. So to call it a “clean coal” plant is to mislead and greenwash the public. And what is the response from environmental NGOs and groups? Zero. Nothing. Not even a whisper. There are no comments or public statement stating their views on the new plant and whether they think it is a good or bad idea.

3) Recently, the government announced that Singapore will reduce carbon emissions growth by 16% from 2020 business-as-usual levels. Is this sufficient? What are the implications? What are the views of environmental NGOs? Yet again, they are silent and give no opinions. So the public can only rely on government statements and official media channels.

4) The Sustainable Singapore Blueprint on “A Lively and Liveable Singapore: Strategies for Sustainable Growth” was announced in May this year and would guide our green actions till 2030. Is this blueprint adequate to meet our challenges? Does the blueprint really help Singapore achieve sustainability? Again, no public statements from NGOs on whether it’s good or bad. Some NGOs have provided reports to the government but are still based on single issues like nature conservation.

What’s Next?

To keep environmentalism in Singapore alive, we have to correct the two death factors of the issue-approach and the lack of an open voice. We understand that it is not realistic to expect local environmental NGOs and groups to focus on diverse issues or to always openly speak up and issue public statements, due to the lack of manpower, resources and time. To address this, we propose that the environmental NGOs and groups could set up a new alliance called ASS – Alliance for Sustainable Singapore (or other name).

ASS will be a non-profit and non-partisan alliance of environmental NGOs and green groups (could expand to include other sectors like social NGOs, communities, businesses, associations, religious groups, research institutes, scientists and citizens), working together to give a strong coordinated open green voice, address complex issues like climate change, and help to create and shape a Sustainable Singapore.

There are pros and cons of having such an alliance:

Cons

• Too many groups and voices resulting in bureaucracy, disputes, action paralysis, slow respond, and turf wars
• Could be seen as a potential “threat” to the government

Pros

• Provide open, coordinated and strong voice on environmental issues
• Share resources and learn from each other
• Greater outreach with “cross-pollination” of volunteers and channels
• Stronger position to engage with the government, businesses and foreign organisations
• Advocate policies and recommendations for a Sustainable Singapore

What do you think? Is environmentalism in Singapore dead or alive? Do you agree with our two potential death factors? Do you think we need an ASS? Or are we just talking crap? Or you don’t really bother about going green?

The challenge, … , is how to work in a cooperative style without losing one’s identity, how to oppose government proposals without being censored, and how to go on existing without becoming redundant or unable to survive due to saturation of human and financial resources. – quoted by Maria Francesch-Huidobro in Governance, Politics and the Environment

Green Fuels & Vehicles China 2010

Green Fuels & Vehicles China 2010

The Innovation & Industrialization in the Coexistence Era of Alternative & Conventional Vehicles

April 8-9, 2010 Shanghai, China

Green Fuels & Vehicles China 2010 — focusing on the alternative fuels & vehicles and green conventional auto industries will highlight updated policy and market outlook, technical innovations, operational & management experiences of alternative fuels, hybrid vehicles, electric vehicles, battery and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, conventional auto, powertrain, engines and emission controls to enlighten the relevant industry participants with long-term technical and business insights, providing the unparalleled global networking platform. Read more

True or False: Singapore to Reduce Carbon Emissions Growth by 16% from 2020 BAU Levels

You must have already heard of the announcement yesterday that Singapore will reduce carbon emissions growth by 16% from 2020 business-as-usual levels, provided that:

Singapore will only commit to this if there is a legally binding global deal that obliges all countries to cut emissions, and if other countries offer significant pledges, said Professor Jayakumar. – Straits Times

Read more from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs news release and from the local media.

We were wondering yesterday whether the 16% cut refers to absolute carbon emissions or carbon intensity, and whether the cut is from 1990 or 2005 levels. But having read the news over again, we realised that:

Singapore’s target means it will cut roughly 12 million tonnes of CO2 by 2020, said Dr Yaacob.

This is based on a projection that the country’s emissions would reach 75 million tonnes of CO2 by 2020 if no measures were taken. – Straits Times

Singapore’s absolute carbon emissions in 2007 is about 40 million tonnes and from the statement above, it seems that the government projected that carbon emissions will reach 75 million tonnes in 2020 on a business-as-usual scenario. If Singapore takes action to reduce its emissions by 16%, the cut is equivalent to 12 million tonnes, meaning that emissions would reach 63 million tonnes in 2020. This cut is not based on 1990 or 2005 levels, it is just based on 2020 levels, which implies that there is no peak in emissions and a drop thereafter. What we would expect is a continuous increase in absolute carbon emissions till 2020.

The graph above shows the absolute carbon emissions from 1990 (22 Mt) to 2007 (40 Mt) based on available published data by the government. If we do a projection of the emissions from 2008 to 2020 based on an estimated 5% annual growth (BAU), we would reach 75 Mt, which is the business-as-usual scenario projected by the government.

If we do a projection of the emissions from 2008 to 2020 based on an estimated 3.6% annual growth (pledge), we would reach 63 Mt, which is the 16% cut committed or the we-will-take-action scenario projected by the government.

From 1990 to 2007, the average annual emissions growth is about 3.6%. We would expect a projection for business-as-usual scenarios for the future to use this number but the government uses a higher business-as-usual growth of 5%.

What we find funny is that when the government commits to the 16% cut by 2020, it is reducing the average annual growth in emissions from 2008 to 2020 from 5% to 3.6%, which is the same annual growth as what we have been doing over the past 17 years. In other words, if we continue business-as-usual from 2008 to 2020 without the 16% cut, we would still reach the projected 63 million tonnes in 2020 or the we-will-take-action scenario.

So, are we really reducing carbon emissions by 16% from 2020 BAU levels or are we just assuming a higher BAU level in 2020 and then committing to 16% cuts, which results in a level we would reached anyway if we don’t take any measures to reduce emissions?

Or are we just plainly wrong, make wrong assumptions and mistakes? Or did we get the maths wrong? Or maybe we are just talking rubbish and don’t know what we are talking about? Let us know what you think.

« Previous Page