Explore Simple and Cost-Effective Ways to Maximise the Use of Our Existing Recycling Infrastructure

Grace Chua from the Straits Times wrote an article yesterday on Recycling: Time to get our act together. She suggested some laws and improvements to increase the recycling efforts of households and businesses.

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.

Stop Burying Our Head in the Sand

An international NGO, Global Witness,  recently released its report – Shifting Sand: how Singapore’s demand for Cambodian sand threatens ecosystems and undermines good governance. The report highlighted that Singapore’s demand for sand fuels the sand industry in Cambodia, which lacks transparency and accountability, and ignores national environmental and social safeguards. The report also accused Singapore of not doing enough to mitigate against the negative impacts of its sand demand, which undermines our position as an environmental leader in the region.

Singapore’s Ministry of National Development issued a statement, which was reported in the local media, and said that the report:

suggests that the Singapore Government seeks to import sand without due regard to the laws or environmental impact of the source country, in this case, Cambodia.

This is not true. We are committed to the protection of the global environment, and we do not condone the illegal export or smuggling of sand, or any extraction of sand that is in breach of the source countries’ laws and rules on environmental protection. We have not received any official notice on the ban of sand exports from Cambodia.

- Straits Times

This is among one of the many accusations about Singapore’s sand imports and its impacts on our neighbours. We think that the government needs to confront this problem properly and take proactive, concrete and transparent steps to ensure that our supply of sand from other countries is responsible.

Here’s a letter we sent to the Straits Times and Today:

The report by Global Witness has been widely covered in the foreign media and has put Singapore in a bad light. This is one of the many accusations on Singapore’s sand imports and its impacts, and it will not be the last accusation if we carry on burying our head in the sand and refusing to confront the problem properly.

A country that prides itself on its clean and green reputation has to constantly ensure that the supply of raw materials from other countries for nation-building purposes has minimal impacts on the environment and the people of the source country. Any misbehaviour by suppliers will affect the country’s reputation.

Let us solve this problem in a concrete and transparent manner. It is not enough for the government to confront the negative accusations by insisting that it did nothing wrong and that the accusations are not true. Instead, MND and JTC should be proactive and arrange a meeting with Global Witness to address the report’s accusations, concerns and recommendations. The agencies should treat this as an opportunity to refute inaccuracies in the report and seek advice in finding a suitable solution to this persistent thorn of sand import accusations.

MND and JTC have to rethink their policies on sand imports and address the following issues:

Are sand suppliers breaking the source country’s legal regulations? Are they engaging in illegal and corrupt activities? How is this checked and monitored? Who does the monitoring and how frequent is it done?

What are the guidelines for sustainable sourcing of sand from other countries? Is it based on international standards? How is it enforced?

The damage to our reputation is already done but we can prevent future accusations if we take proactive, concrete and transparent steps to ensure that our supply of sand from other countries is responsible. Let us stop burying our head in the sand.

The edited letter was published in Today.

Winds of Change – East Asia’s Sustainable Energy Future

The Sustainable Energy Association of Singapore (SEAS) organised a lunchtime seminar at Thomson Reuters yesterday, where The World Bank presented its flagship study report, Winds of Change – East Asia’s Sustainable Energy Future. Dr Wang Xiaodong, Senior Energy Specialist, East Asia & Pacific (EAP) region of the World Bank, gave a summary of the report findings, which incorporates the lessons learned from the World Bank in advocating policies and programs for clean energy investments in East Asia and Pacific countries.

The study covers six countries – China, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam, and has the following key messages:

… large-scale deployment of energy efficiency and low-carbon technologies can simultaneously stabilize East Asia’s CO2 emissions by 2025 and significantly improve the local environment and enhance energy security, without compromising economic growth.

… accelerating the speed and scaling up the efforts are needed to get onto a sustainable energy path. The window of opportunity is closing fast, because delaying action would lock the region into a long-lasting high-carbon infrastructure.

This shift to a clean energy revolution requires major domestic policy and institutional reforms. Governments can adopt climate smart domestic policies now to deploy existing low-carbon technologies while a global climate deal is negotiated … To fully realize the huge energy efficiency potentials in the region requires the removal of fossil-fuel subsidies and incorporation of environmental externalities into energy pricing as well as a concerted strategy to tackle market failures and barriers with effective regulations, financial incentives, institutional reforms, and financing mechanisms.

Developed countries need to transfer substantial financing and low-carbon technologies. To achieve this sustainable energy path, a major hurdle is to mobilize financing for the net additional investment of $80 billion per year over the next two decades. It is estimated that approximately $25 billion per year would be required as concessional financing to cover the incremental costs and risks of energy efficiency and renewable energy. In addition, substantial grants are also needed to build capacity of local stakeholders. The technical and policy means exist for such transformations, but only strong political will and unprecedented international cooperation will make them happen.

Source and image credit: Winds of Change – East Asia’s Sustainable Energy Future by The World Bank

Panel Discussion on the Smart Energy Economy

The panel discussion on the Economic Strategies Committee’s (ESC) recent recommendations for a Smart Energy Economy, was held this morning at NUS. The panelists include:

• 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.

Committee of Supply Debate 2010: Environmental Policies under the Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources

Dr Yaacob Ibrahim, Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, and Dr Amy Khor, Senior Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources, gave their speeches during the Committee of Supply Debate under the Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources (MEWR) yesterday. The speeches address various environmental policies, including:

• Sustainable Development – Overall Approach to Resource Efficiency and Mitigating Climate Change
• Improving Energy Efficiency
• Singapore’s Vulnerability to Climate Change
• Managing Our Water Resources
• Recycling and Waste Minimisation
• Building Up R&D and Manpower Capabilities in Clean Environment and Water Sectors
• Dengue
• Sustaining Public Cleanliness
• Licensing Elderly Tissue Paper Peddlers
• Noise
• Enhancements to Food Hygiene Regime
• ABC Waters Programme

Here are some key points that they raised: Read more

Committee of Supply Debate 2010: Green Building Policies under the Ministry of National Development

Ms Grace Fu, Senior Minister of State for National Development gave her speech during the Committee of Supply Debate under the Ministry of National Development (MND) yesterday. The speech addresses policies related to green buildings in Singapore:

Greening Our Buildings

19 Mr Cedric Foo has asked how HDB estates can be more sustainable. Our existing HDB estates have designs which facilitate cross-ventilation and natural lighting. For new estates, we will continue to incorporate environmentally friendly features and green technologies. For example, HDB is pushing forward the installation of solar photovoltaic panels (PV) at four precincts at Tampines, Bukit Panjang, Tanjong Pagar and Marine Parade.

20 HDB, together with Town Councils, also aims to reduce the energy consumption of common areas in new and existing HDB estates by 20% and 30% respectively. This is done by introducing features such as energy efficient light fittings and lift systems.

21 In addition, HDB has piloted centralised recycling chute systems in our existing estates (Blk 297C and 297D Chua Chu Kang). The results of the pilot study were encouraging, with about 3 times more recyclables collected as compared to conventional door-to-door collection method. With the plan to position Punggol as an Eco-Town for the tropics, such technologies will be explored for testing on a larger scale in Punggol.

22 Our sustainable development efforts must extend beyond our public housing estates. In April 2009, the Government released Sustainable Singapore Blueprint which outlined our efforts to improve our overall energy efficiency by 35% from 2005 levels by 2030. All sectors, including the building sector will need to play their part towards meeting this target.

Raising Minimum Standards for New Buildings

23 By the end of this year, we will raise the mandatory minimum energy efficiency standard for Green Mark certified level for new buildings by 10% from today’s standard. Correspondingly, the energy efficiency standards for other Green Mark levels, i.e. Gold, GoldPlus, and Platinum will be raised. Building owners can enjoy cost savings in the long run by being more energy efficient.

Mandatory Submission of Energy Data

24 To better understand energy consumption patterns, and to monitor the effectiveness of our energy efficiency measures, BCA will require building owners and utilities companies to submit energy and other building related data such as Gross Floor Area (GFA) and specifications of building systems on an annual basis starting from 2011. Building owners can also use the information to pro-actively improve their buildings’ energy efficiency.

25 Going forward, BCA will consult the industry on the possibility of mandating a minimum energy efficiency standard for existing buildings.

Source: MND

Committee of Supply Debate 2010: Energy Policies under the Ministry of Trade and Industry

Mr S Iswaran, Senior Minister of State for Trade and Industry, gave his speech during the Committee of Supply Debate under the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) yesterday. The speech addresses questions related to Singapore’s energy policy, and can be downloaded from the MTI website.

Here are some key points that he raised:

Our goal is to make Singapore a Smart Energy Economy with an energy ecosystem that is secure, sustainable and competitive. Our strategy to meet the global energy challenges rests on two key thrusts: diversification and competitive energy markets.

The Government agrees with the Economic Strategies Committee’s (ESC) recommendation to adopt a portfolio approach towards energy – in other words, no one energy option will be adequate to meet our varied energy objectives.

We will adopt a pragmatic approach by evaluating the alternatives on the basis of energy security, economic viability and environmental sustainability.

Among the renewable energy sources currently available, solar is one of the most promising in our context for electricity generation. While still relatively expensive today, solar energy prices could achieve grid parity in the medium term.

… why are we prepared to study nuclear energy as an option now. There are several reasons for this. Firstly, it can potentially enhance energy security, reduce carbon emissions, and mitigate the impact of volatile oil and gas prices – thus it could meet, potentially all our objectives embedded in the national energy policy.

The aim is to ensure that we fully understand, and objectively evaluate from all perspectives, the opportunities, challenges and risks involved with nuclear energy. The study will commence later this year. It will entail a careful, deliberate and rigorous examination of the technical, economic and safety aspects of nuclear energy.

Clean coal could be a component of our energy diversification strategy. Currently, coal makes up more than 40 per cent of global power generation. And, it is expected to remain at this level until at least 2030 given the relative abundance of coal sources in the world. Coal also has a cost advantage though this may be eroded by any future global carbon pricing regime. However, combustion technology is evolving, making coal cleaner than before and we must, therefore, keep this option open.

We are price-takers in the global energy market because we are small and import almost all our energy requirements. We therefore must allow the full cost of energy to be reflected in prices. Subsidising energy would be encouraging wasteful consumption and it will also be a drain on public finances.

Source: MTI

Next Page »