2nd Annual Sustainable Cities 2010

Location: InterContinental Hotel, SINGAPORE

Website: www.sustainablecitiesasia.com

The 2nd Annual Sustainable Cities 2010 this 27 – 30 September 2010 in Singapore will show you successful urban planning strategies that will help your business achieve its sustainability objectives, meet green building standards, cut costs and increase company profits.

International authorities, developers, architects and leaders from related industries will gather in Singapore to discuss key issues and trends, regional legislation and policies, investment opportunities, green technological innovations and solutions associated with developing sustainable cities of the future.

Hear from some of Asia’s leading architects, urban planners and property developers, including ACLA, Kohn Pedersen Fox Associates, Broadway Malyan Asia, Bakrie Pangripta Loka, Surbana, Arup UK, Sime Darby Property, Lend Lease, Singapore Institute of Planners, Jurong Consultants, Cardiff University, CB Richard Ellis, Energy Market Authority Singapore, Dimond Architects, ASrIA, Arup China, and BioRegional China.

Sustainable Cities 2010 is your strategic platform for investment opportunities, partnerships, learning and networking.

Contact Name: Eileen David

Contact Email: Eileen.david@ibcasia.com.sg

Contact Tel: +65 – 6508 2458 / +65 – 6508 2400

Contact Fax: +65 – 6508 2407

Organiser Name: IBC Asia (S) Pte Ltd

Organiser URL: www.ibc-asia.com

The Office of Environmental Sustainability (OES), National University of Singapore and the Workplace Research Centre (WRC), University of Sydney are jointly organising The National Sustainability Conference 2010, entitled “Environmental Up-Skilling & the Green Collar Industry”. This conference builds on the Climate Change @ Work series of conferences which take place in Australia and promote achieving sustainability in the workplace through sustainable leadership and management practice.

This conference will promote achieving sustainability in workplaces through sustainable leadership and green business solutions. The main themes of the 2010 conference will centre on important management issues, such as how sustainability practices will affect workplace relations, skill demands and career opportunities, to operational issues such as carbon emissions mitigation practices in the workplace. It will feature case studies from companies who will be showcasing how they have driven and developed sustainable business practices in their organisations.

For more information and to register please go to our website www.nationalsustainabilityconference.com

Grace Tan, Sustainability Executive (Singapore)

Office of Environmental Sustainability, University of Singapore

Phone: +65 6516 1983; Email: grace_tan@nus.edu.sg

Office of Environmental Sustainability

2 Estate Office Drive, Singapore 117587

National University of Singapore

T: +65 6516 1983; F: +65 6778 6031

W: www.nus.edu.sg/oes

Karen Treacy, Events Coordinator (Sydney)

Workplace Research Centre, University of Sydney

Phone: + 61 2 93515624; Email: karen.treacy@sydney.edu.au

Workplace Research Centre

Storie Dixson Wing, H10

Faculty of Economics and Business, The University of Sydney

NSW 2006 Australia

T: +61 2 9351 5626; F: +61 2 9351 5615

W: www.wrc.org.au

Before considering her suggestions for households, I would suggest that the National Environment Agency (NEA) explore simple and cost-effective ways to maximise the use of our existing recycling infrastructure, which often is underutilised or misused.

The National Recycling Programme (NRP) has been implemented at HDB estates and landed properties since 2001, where residents are given either recycling bags or bins for recyclables, which are collected once every 2 weeks from their doorsteps. With the NRP, households can recycle conveniently and do not even have to walk downstairs to the nearest recycling bin or walk out of their house to the chutes to recycle. Households can also make use of the recycling bins near their flats since there are one set of recycling bins for every five blocks of flats.

For households in condominiums and private apartments, they can recycle through the recycling programme at their residence as it is mandatory from 2008 for all condominiums and private apartments to put in place recycling programmes.

With the existing recycling infrastructure, the NEA should aim to maximise its usage and tweak it to increase recycling, before deciding to implement new laws, place more bins or add more separate chutes system, which is likely to increase business costs and be passed on to the residents.

To make full use of the existing recycling infrastructure, the NEA could study simple and cost-effective ways to “nudge” households and increase recycling participation. In the book, Switch: How to Change Things When Change is Hard, by Chip Heath and Dan Heath, the authors pointed out two common misconceptions on change, which we can adapt to help increase recycling.

One, “what looks like resistance is often a lack of clarity”. We need to provide crystal-clear direction to the households on the recycling programme. Some questions to ask: Are the households aware or clear about the NRP in terms of why there is a need to have the programme; how the programme works; what items can be recycled; how the collection is done; how frequent is the collection, and where the recyclables end up? Can we appoint volunteer recycling ambassadors or guides to help the residents? Can we use more mass media and social media to explain the recycling programme and spread the message?

Two, “what looks like a people problem is often a situation problem”. We need to make it easier for the households to recycle by tweaking the existing recycling infrastructure. Some questions to ask: How to make it easier for households to remember the recycling dates; identify what items can be recycled; and find the nearest recycling bin? Can we place a reminder on each rubbish bin and chute to remind residents to recycle? Can we provide data for comparing recycling performance for each estate or block? Can we use social media and smartphone apps to remind residents on their recycling collection dates? Can we place better images of recyclables on the recycling bags or bins to show clearly what items are recyclable?

The NEA should study simple and cost-effective ways before implementing new laws, bins or systems whose increased costs could be borne by the residents.

Besides recycling, it is also important to focus more on reduce and reuse. There is a sequence to the widely known 3Rs – Reduce, Reuse and Recycle. “Reduce” should always be practised first to minimise or prevent the waste from being generated in the beginning. Next, “Reuse” the generated waste over again for the same or different purpose. Lastly, “Recycle” the waste so that it can be processed and used as a new material. Recycling still involves energy and resources to process the used material, and should be done last.

An edited version was published at ST Forum Online.

Green Future Solutions started its first green campaign called mywaterbottle on 22 April 2010, Earth Day. mywaterbottle is a non-profit campaign to encourage more Singaporeans to use their own refillable water bottles, instead of buying or taking single-use bottled water.

mywaterbottle Goals

mywaterbottle aims to achieve the following goals:

1. Create awareness on the environmental impacts of single-use bottled water and encourage people to use refillable water bottles.

2. Show that tap water is safe to drink and tastes just as good as bottled water.

3. Make it easy to choose and buy affordable refillable water bottles that are safe for both environment and health.

4. Build a map of mywaterbottle refillers (water coolers, cafes, restaurants, food and beverage outlets, etc) for easy and free refilling of water bottles.

5. Showcase events that encourage participants to bring their own refillable water bottles.

mywaterbottle Activities

mywaterbottle conducts the following activities:

1. Organise The Tap Water Challenge

mywaterbottle organises The Tap Water Challenge, which takes the form of a blind taste test for the public. The aim is to show that tap water is safe to drink and tastes just as good as bottled water.

The public is asked to taste two types of water – one is from a brand of bottled water and the other is tap water. They will select which one they prefer or feel that there is no difference between the two. The result is revealed after the taste test.

During The Tap Water Challenge, mywaterbottle also:

• Educate the public on the environmental impacts of single-use bottled water
• Encourage them to use refillable water bottles instead of buying or taking bottled water
• Ask them to show their support by signing the mywaterbottle pledge.

2. Sell Refillable Water Bottles

mywaterbottle provides an easy platform for Singaporeans to choose and buy refillable water bottles that are durable, affordable and BPA-free. 100% of the profits will go to fund water projects in developing countries that provide clean and safe drinking water.

3. Identify mywaterbottle Refillers

mywaterbottle identifies water coolers and invites cafes, restaurants, and food and beverage outlets to join as mywaterbottle refillers and provide free water to anyone with a refillable water bottle. The locations are published on a map of mywaterbottle refillers in Singapore.

4. Showcase Events that Support Refillable Water Bottles

mywaterbottle showcases events that encourage participants to bring their own refillable water bottles, and reduce the use of bottled water.

Images

mywaterbottle logo:

Contact

Eugene Tay, Founder of mywaterbottle

Email: hello@mywaterbottle.org

Website: http://www.mywaterbottle.org

Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/mywaterbottle

Twitter: http://twitter.com/mywaterbottle

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.

The reason why we wrote the letter and sent it to the media is because we worry that The Rebound Effect could be happening with more people switching to other substitute activities that consume more energy during Earth Hour. We wanted to remind everyone that we must take action to conserve energy daily and ensure that our actions do not contribute to the problem we are trying to solve.

Unfortunately, it seems that our worries came true. Today Online reported today that:

This year, the 400 Earth Hour participants in Singapore contributed to electricity consumption falling by 23 megawatts on Saturday – a drop that represented a mere 0.021 per cent of average electricity consumption for Saturdays, according to the Energy Market Authority (EMA).

The total reduction was only roughly half that of last year’s Earth Hour, when power consumption fell 42 megawatts.

World Wide Fund for Nature’s Earth Hour campaign manager Ms Carine Seror said: “There could a number of factors – people could have turned off the lights but not the air-conditioning. We’ll be asking EMA to help us interpret the numbers.”

This year’s Earth Hour saw more participants and organisations taking action with electricity consumption dropping by 23 MW, but this was half of last year’s 42 MW drop. Why is this happening? This is serious and has deep implications for future actions. The organisers must find out what’s wrong.

Is it due to The Rebound Effect?

Our letter to the media:

Earth Hour is back again and takes place this Saturday. Earth Hour is not just about switching off lights; it’s about two key forces at work – The Asymmetry Principle vs The Rebound Effect.

The Asymmetry Principle as described by the energy economist Peter Tertzakian, states that a unit of energy saved at the consuming end (lighting a light bulb) amplifies into multiple units of energy saved at the source (at the natural gas well). This is due to the inefficiencies and energy losses in fuel production, electricity generation, electricity transmission, and conversion to useful work.

When you switch off your lights or appliances during Earth Hour, it is not merely the act of pressing a switch but the amplifying effects of conserving the energy resources upstream. However, energy conservation must be done by everyone daily to make a significant difference such that The Asymmetry Principle plays out. Annual Earth Hour actions will be insufficient to effect an actual change in the reduction of energy resources.

The Rebound Effect refers to the behavioral responses to the introduction of energy efficiency measures, which tend to offset the actual benefits of the measures. For example, if you replace a 20W light bulb with a 10W energy efficient bulb, the energy saving should be 50%. However, the actual energy saving is usually less than 50% because as you pay less for lighting, you tend to be less concerned with switching it off. The increased usage thus eats away the energy savings from the more efficient bulb.

The Rebound Effect can be adapted to explain that actual energy savings could be less than expected savings from energy conservation. When you reduce energy from one activity but use more energy by switching to other substitute activities, the actual savings is less than expected savings. Everyone should support Earth Hour but we have to remind ourselves that the Earth Hour activities we take part in should not be using more energy as compared to our usual activities.

We need to see more of The Asymmetry Principle and less of The Rebound Effect. We need more people to switch off their lights and reduce their energy consumption daily so as to amplify the energy savings at the source. We need less people to switch to other substitute activities that consume more energy. So remember for this year’s Earth Hour, everyone must take action to conserve energy daily and ensure that our actions do not contribute to the problem we are trying to solve.

my paper published an edited version of our letter today:

Today published an edited version of our letter on 30 Mar.

Greenpeace South East Asia are seeking its next generation of leaders…future caretakers and activists for the Earth!

Could this be ‘YOU’?

Are you ready for the opportunity of a life time? To make a positive change for our environment? To stand up and make a real difference in an effort to protect our planet?

Become part of the ‘GREENPEACE UNIVERSITY’ Program, and not only achieve all of the above, but learn the skills and gain the experience to become an environmental activist of the future.

Commencing 14th June 2010, this exciting, first of its kind program in South East Asia consists of a 6.5 week direct learning program, delivered through systematic and guided training as well as relevant and ‘real’ hands-on practical experience. The course program is free of charge.

Participants will be ‘submerged’ into the world of Greenpeace. Here they will gain high level exposure to all major facets of our operation as well as essential training in skills such as basic campaign training, project management and research techniques. Based on this themed training, participants will be given the opportunity to apply their knowledge in a fully supervised, practical manner through a series of stimulating, real and relevant challenges and campaign placements.

Students successfully completing the program will be awarded a certificate of achievement upon completion.

To be eligible for this exciting program, you must meet the following criteria:

• Ability to speak, read and write in English language;
• Between 18 – 25 years of age;
• Committed and passionate towards saving the environment;
• Energetic, enthusiastic and willing to work hard, to learn and to be constantly challenged;
• Self confident, proactive and results orientated;
• Team player, with a ‘can do’ attitude;
• Ability to work in a multicultural environment;
• Able to fully commit to 6.5 week, full-time program (approx. 38 hours per week) on a volunteer basis*

Eligible candidates who wish to apply should forward their resume (2 pages), an application cover letter explaining why they wish to become the new voice of our planet and join Greenpeace University, as well as a 500 word essay (in English), addressing one of the following topics:

1. Should economic development come at the expense of our environment?
2. What is civil society’s role in environmental protection?
3. Many businesses now say they are ‘green’. Many communities now have ‘green’ initiatives. Is this enough to protect our environment for future generations?

Applicants should send their application to:

Indonesian Applications: gpu.id@greenpeace.org

Singapore Applications: gpu.sg@greenpeace.org

Malaysian Applications: gpu.my@greenpeace.org

Become an environmental activist of the future and join Greenpeace University!

* Note: Financially disadvantaged applicants may apply to the program on a partial scholarship basis in which a modest stipend towards transport and accommodation may be awarded to the successful applicant/s. Interested applicants may request a Greenpeace University ‘Partial Scholarship’ Application Form by writing to chelsey.james@greenpeace.org. All scholarship applications should be submitted together with the general program application for the selection panels consideration.

Applications close 16th April 2010

For more information, feel free to visit our Greenpeace University website at:
www.greenpeace.org/gpu

The switching off of lights is a symbolic act for everyone to take responsibility and fight climate change. Find out more about what you can do and pledge your support for Earth Hour.

Earth Hour has been successful in gaining support and participation over the past few years. For this year’s Earth Hour, we would like to remind everyone that Earth Hour is not just about switching off lights, it’s about two key forces at work – The Asymmetry Principle vs The Rebound Effect:

The Asymmetry Principle

In his book, The End of Energy Obesity: Breaking Today’s Energy Addiction for a Prosperous and Secure Tomorrow, energy economist Peter Tertzakian describes The Asymmetry Principle as:

the lopsided relationship between how much raw energy is available at the primary source — for example, at a natural gas well — and the small fraction of energy that is actually put to useful work at the consuming end — for example, in lighting a light bulb. The principle states that a unit of energy saved at the consumer level amplifies into multiple units of energy saved at the source. In effect, the asymmetry principle exposes the high levels of inefficiency in society’s energy systems and highlights the tremendous leverage offered by efficiency gains and conservation in mitigating source energy consumption.

He gave the example of a light bulb:

1. 100 energy units of natural gas at source
2. 40 energy units remaining due to conversion to electricity
3. 35 energy units remaining due to transmission losses
4. 2 energy units remaining due to conversion to light

In this example of a light bulb, reducing the consumption of one unit of energy (as light) actually saves the production of 50 units of energy (as natural gas) if you account for the inefficiencies and energy losses in fuel production, electricity generation, electricity transmission and thermal conversion to light.

To put it simply, when you switch off the lights and save X units of energy, you are actually saving more than X units of energy as the energy savings amplify back to the energy source.

Therefore, energy conservation or reducing your energy consumption plays an important role in reducing carbon emissions. When you switch off your lights or appliances at home during Earth Hour, it is not merely the act of pressing a switch but the multiplying and amplifying effects of conserving the energy resources upstream.

However, energy conservation must be done by everyone daily to make a significant difference such that The Asymmetry Principle plays out. Take the example of last year’s Earth Hour:

In Singapore, turning off lights and electrical appliances during Earth Hour saw a 42-megawatt drop in electricity demand. This is equivalent to 40 per cent of the electricity demand in Ang Mo Kio for that hour, said Energy Market Authority (EMA).

However, there was no real decrease in carbon emissions.

Since we only used 1 per cent less electricity as we normally would have in that hour, the generation companies (gencos) burnt just as much fuel as usual, said EMA.

- The New Paper

For actual reduction in the fuel usage and carbon emissions, everyone in Singapore (households and organisations) must play a part in energy conservation on a daily basis to reduce Singapore’s energy demand. Ad hoc or yearly Earth Hour actions will not be sufficient to effect an actual change in the reduction of energy resources and carbon emissions.

The Rebound Effect

The Rebound Effect usually refers to the behavioral responses to the introduction of new energy efficiency technologies or measures, which tend to offset the actual benefits of the new technology or measures. In other words, actual energy savings is less than expected savings.

For example, if you replace a 20W incandescent light bulb with a 10W energy efficient compact fluorescent bulb, the energy saving should be 50%. However, the actual energy saving is usually less than 50% because as you find that you pay less for lighting, you tend to be less concerned with switching it off. The increased usage thus eat away some of the energy savings from the more efficient light bulb.

Here, we will adapt The Rebound Effect to explain that the actual energy or carbon emission savings could be less than the expected savings from energy conservation. When you reduce energy or carbon emissions from one activity but use more energy or generate more emissions by switching to other substitute activities, then the actual savings is less than expected savings.

For example, you usually read a book on a Saturday night. But to support Earth Hour, you switch off your lights, thus saving X units of energy. In the dark, you can’t read so you switch on the TV and watch it for the whole night. The actual energy savings is thus less than the expected X units of energy savings.

Or instead of staying at home, you decide to drive your car to an event that celebrates Earth Hour. The additional carbon emissions could be more than the expected emission savings from switching off the lights.

You should still support Earth Hour but remember The Rebound Effect and remind yourself that the Earth Hour activities you take part in should not be causing more energy consumption or carbon emissions as compared to your usual activities.

The Asymmetry Principle vs The Rebound Effect

Earth Hour is really about The Asymmetry Principle vs The Rebound Effect. We need to see more of The Asymmetry Principle and less of The Rebound Effect.

We need more people to switch off their lights and reduce their energy consumption daily so as to amplify the energy savings at the source. We need less people to switch to other substitute activities that consume more energy or generate more emissions.

So remember for this year’s Earth Hour, everyone must take action to conserve energy daily and ensure that our actions do not contribute to the problem we are trying to solve.

• Prof. Linda Yuen-Ching Lim: Professor of Strategy at the Stephen M. Ross School of Business at the University of Michigan
• Dr. Natasha Hamilton-Hart: Associate Professor and Deputy Head in the Southeast Asian Studies Programme of the National University of Singapore
• Dr. Tilak Doshi: Chief Economist and Principal Fellow at the Energy Studies Institute
• Dr. Cheng-Guan Michael Quah: Chief Scientist and Principal Fellow at the Energy Studies Institute

The panelists provided their frank views on the ESC recommendations and report, both good and bad. Some of the key views include:

Timid and Bounded

Dr Natasha called the report timid while Dr Michael called it bounded. Dr Natasha said that some of the recommendations were already what the government has been doing for decades. It also fails to look at the reality of some problems, including the income inequality of the rich and poor. Dr Michael said that there were no stretch goals and the KPIs were achievable. There is a need to create new thinking, look forward and keep pushing the boundaries.

Lack of Integration

Prof Linda said that there is a lack of a holistic approach to integrate all the strategies. Manufacturing, tourism or other sectors, and energy can’t be looked at separately. There is a need to integrate our energy strategy across the different sectors. The government is at a competitive advantage as it can do things other government can’t do easily.

Culture Change

Dr Michael highlighted the importance of culture change and a different kind of lifestyle while Dr Tilak spoke about the role of behaviour economics. Prof Linda commented on the difference between energy conservation and energy efficiency. There is a need to reduce our absolute energy consumption if we talk about energy security. Steps have to be taken to reduce our energy dependency and prepare for higher energy prices.

Here is Eugene’s reply letter to the ST Editor:

I refer to the article, “Reign of old king coal is not necessarily over” by Grace Chua (ST Mar 19).

The article highlighted several environmental and technological uncertainties associated with the use of coal, which would be best answered by the government. The public needs to know the pros and cons of using coal, and it would help if the government openly and clearly explains its decision to use coal, while anticipating the coming carbon-constrained world, maintaining our clean and green image, and achieving our aim to be a clean energy hub.

For a start, the government could clarify the following:

1. Has the government assessed the environmental impacts of using coal or conducted a life cycle assessment study of coal? How does it compare with natural gas?

2. Would the government require the upcoming coal and biomass-fired power plant by Tuas Power or new power plants using coal, to conduct an environmental impact assessment before going ahead to construct?

3. Would the use of coal lead to more carbon emissions as compared to using natural gas, and undermine the government’s own efforts to reduce emissions by 16% from 2020 business-as-usual levels?

4. Is the government funding research on carbon capture and storage, or technology to reduce coal emissions so that they are on par with those from natural gas?

5. Would the use of coal tarnish Singapore’s reputation as a clean and green city?

6. Would the use of coal without carbon capture and storage technology contradict Singapore’s vision to be a clean energy hub?

7. Would the use of coal reduce the demand for LNG and challenge the viability of the government’s new LNG terminal?

The IT Show in Singapore which ended yesterday broke records yet again with sales over S$65 million and over 800,000 visitors. Record sales and visitors have been achieved every year and this is the same for the other tech shows – The PC Show (June), COMEX (September), and SITEX (November). The four tech shows are also know as Singapore’s four seasons as they happen every three months.

Singaporeans just can’t get enough of tech gadgets and products. We lap up every new phone, camera, computer, netbook, printer, portable hard disk, and music player that is available. We keep buying and changing more electrical and electronic products unnecessarily. It’s like we are suffering from obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and can’t stop.

Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is a type of anxiety disorder in which you have unreasonable thoughts and fears (obsessions) that lead you to engage in repetitive behaviors (compulsions). With obsessive-compulsive disorder, you may realize that your obsessions aren’t reasonable, and you may try to ignore them or stop them. But that only increases your distress and anxiety. Ultimately, you feel driven to perform compulsive acts in an effort to ease your distress. – MayoClinic.com

Perhaps Singaporeans may be suffering from tech obsessive-compulsive disorder (TOCD), which we define as a type of anxiety disorder in which a person feels empty and unsatisfied with existing tech products (which are working perfectly fine), and engages in repetitive behaviour to buy new tech products in an effort to ease that urge. But after buying the new tech products, the person feels empty again and has the urge to buy newer tech products, and the cycle continues again (every 3 months).

Are you suffering from TOCD? TOCD not only causes distress and anxiety to the sufferers but also impacts the environment. Resources are used to manufacture and ship electrical and electronic products all over the world and it’s a waste of resources if the lifespan of the products get shorter as consumers keep changing them.

Most importantly, as more such products are being discarded, it becomes a global e-waste problem. The export of e-waste from developed countries to developing countries on the pretext of recycling poses environmental and health problems as the e-waste contains toxic chemicals that will pollute the environment if they are not “recycled” properly in the developing countries.

We usually prescribe a simple treatment for TOCD by training thoughts on:

Use it as long as it works.

Buy only what you need.

Go to tech shows occasionally.