3 Responses to the Sustainable Singapore Blueprint

The Sustainable Singapore blueprint report, “A Lively and Liveable Singapore: Strategies for Sustainable Growth”, was published last week by the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Sustainable Development (IMCSD). The strategies in the report were based on the rationale of “The Singapore Way”, which is described as follows:

For Singapore, sustainable development means achieving both a more dynamic economy and a better quality living environment, for Singaporeans now and in the future.

We need the economy to grow. This creates jobs, raises our standard of living, and yields the resources that we need to safeguard our environment. But we must grow in a sustainable way, or else a high GDP per capita will be achieved at the expense of our overall quality of life, and cannot be maintained over the longer term. Protecting our environment safeguards a high standard of public health for our people, and makes our city attractive to Singaporeans and foreigners alike.

We think there are probably three different responses to the Sustainable Singapore blueprint report.

Well Done and Pragmatic

One response from the group of people who accept and agree to “The Singapore Way” is that the IMCSD has done a commendable job in coming up with the recommendations and strategies for making Singapore a lively and liveable global city in 2030. Among many other strategies in the blueprint, Singapore would:

• Reduce our energy intensity (per dollar GDP) by 35% from 2005 levels by 2030
• Improve our recycling rate from 56% in 2008 to 70% in 2030
• Reduce total domestic water consumption from 156 litres per capita per day in 2008 to 140 litres per capita per day by 2030
• Target 80% of our existing building stock (by GFA) to achieve at least Green Mark Certified rating (minimum level of energy efficiency) by 2030
• Reduce energy consumption in the common areas of new estates and mature estates by 20% and 30% respectively
• Implement a large-scale solar test-bed for public housing spanning 30 precincts islandwide
• Achieve a modal share of 70% of journeys made during morning peak hours via public transport by 2020
• Provide 0.8ha of park land per 1,000 persons by 2030
• Implement a National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan to research, document and conserve biodiversity in Singapore
• Develop a City Biodiversity Index with international partners to promote biodiversity conservation efforts among cities globally

They applaud the comprehensive policies and bold targets to reduce energy and water consumption, reduce waste generation, increase green spaces and biodiversity, reduce business costs and increase R&D.

Although there is no mention of carbon reduction targets, it is understandable to them as according to “The Singapore Way”, the government will not increase business or household costs, and jeopardise our economic competitiveness. Singapore will be pragmatic.

It’s the Environment, Stupid

The second response is from a group of people who do not really agree with “The Singapore Way” because it seems that economic growth is taken as the central goal with the environment playing a supporting role. This is what they believe:

We see [today] a society and a Government whose primary objective is still the achievement of economic growth as conventionally understood and measured, with as much social justice and environmental protection as can be reconciled with that central goal. We envisage a society whose primary goal should be the wellbeing of society itself and of the planetary resources and environment that sustains us all, with economic objectives shaped to support that central goal rather than the other way around. – Blueprint for a Green Economy, Quality of Life Policy Group

They want to see policies that benefit the environment and society in the long run, even if some costs are incurred in the short-term. They hope to see a focus in the qualitative and not quantitative improvement of lives. They are not saying that we should return to caves and stop the economy, they are just trying to bring a greater focus back to the environment, which is actually sustaining the economy rather than the other way round.

No Comments

The third response is a non-response from the group of people who are not interested in a sustainable Singapore, or the group that are more concerned about other issues like Aware, swine flu and the rojak food poisoning, or the group of people who don’t care what the government has to say on anything.

What’s your response to the Sustainable Singapore blueprint that will guide us till 2030?

Image credit: Wordle.

Thoughts on the Dialogue Session on Building a Sustainable Community

During the Sustainable Singapore dialogue forum, the suggestions came fast and furious with more than 20 participants voicing out their concerns and ideas on recycling, energy conservation and efficiency, cycling, CNG vehicles, green corporate culture, using the media to promote environmental awareness, etc. The participation and suggestions was welcoming, although we felt slight disappointment and a sense of something missing in the dialogue.

There were no serious discussions on what it really means to be sustainable. To be sustainable, we need to change the way we generate and use our energy. We need to eliminate waste and create a closed material loop. We need to rethink how we source and grow our food. And we need to consider whether continuous economic growth is possible and desirable in the long run.

There were no inspiring vision and goals, and the desire to take the initiative. We need to be inspired so that we are motivated to take action ourselves and not only rely on the government. We don’t wish to see another feedback exercise where we give ideas to the government and after that, wash our hands and let the government do their job. We need to realise that sometimes we can take the initiative and not have to wait for the government to take action.

Despite the disappointment, there was a few glimpse of hope. One was from Lai Hock of the Ground-Up Initiative, who spoke about rethinking economic growth, being efficient but not effective, and learning to accept inconveniences. The other was from the guy who cycled to the venue using his foldable bicycle, truly walking the talk.

Dialogue Session on Sustainable Singapore: Enhancing our Physical Environment

November 6, 2008
6:45 pm	to	9:00 pm

Venue: MND Auditorium, 5 Maxwell Road, MND Complex, Annexe A

The Inter-Ministerial Committee on Sustainable Development (IMCSD) is organising two dialogue sessions to discuss the Sustainable Singapore blueprint. The first session on “Building a Sustainable Community” will be chaired by Dr Yaacob Ibrahim, Minister for the Environment and Water Resources on 28 Oct. The second session on “Enhancing our Physical Environment” will be chaired by Mr Mah Bow Tan, Minister for National Development on 6 Nov.

This is a great opportunity to voice out your views on a sustainable Singapore to our ministers. For details and registration, visit the Sustainable Singapore website.

Dialogue Session on Sustainable Singapore: Building a Sustainable Community

October 28, 2008
6:45 pm	to	9:00 pm

Venue: URA Auditorium, The URA Centre, 45 Maxwell Road, 5th storey Podium, Singapore 069118

The Inter-Ministerial Committee on Sustainable Development (IMCSD) is organising two dialogue sessions to discuss the Sustainable Singapore blueprint. The first session on “Building a Sustainable Community” will be chaired by Dr Yaacob Ibrahim, Minister for the Environment and Water Resources on 28 Oct. The second session on “Enhancing our Physical Environment” will be chaired by Mr Mah Bow Tan, Minister for National Development on 6 Nov.

This is a great opportunity to voice out your views on a sustainable Singapore to our ministers. For details and registration, visit the Sustainable Singapore website.

20 Suggestions for Sustainable Singapore

The Inter-Ministerial Committee on Sustainable Development (IMCSD) recently announced Singapore’s vision and initiatives for sustainable development, and is seeking public feedback and suggestions. The IMCSD is studying ways to be more sustainable in the way we Work, Commute, Live and Play. Visit the Sustainable Singapore website to find out more and give your feedback or suggestions.

In response to the call for green ideas, we came up with 20 suggestions that would help Singapore to be more sustainable. The 20 suggestions involve the following categories:

• Reduce Energy and Carbon Emissions
• Redesign, Reduce, Reuse and Recycle Waste
• Reduce Water Demand and Pollution
• Sustainable Transportation
• Sustainable Food, Materials and Products
• Protecting Natural Habitats and Biodiversity
• Greener Companies and Businesses

The 20 suggestions are compiled in a report and sent to the IMCSD Secretariat. To read the full report, download it from Green Business Times.

Building a frugal society

Pan Jiahua, the vice-principal of the Center for Urban Development and Environment, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, explains in ChinaDialogue how China can build a frugal society through sustainable architecture and buildings.

———–

Building a frugal society
Pan Jiahua

November 05, 2007

Adopting sustainable architecture will bring China great environmental gains with little effort, writes Pan Jiahua. If the country really wants to build a “frugal society”, this is how.

In building a frugal society, production, consumption, systems and culture are all important. But architecture is the factor which is most intimately linked to social production and people’s lives. The majority of residential buildings in China are built with low-quality materials, have a short lifespan, are energy-intensive and extremely wasteful of resources. By understanding the causes, realising the potential, taking action and constructing sustainable buildings, we can find a way out of this predicament. This will enable us to achieve maximum results with minimum effort as we look to establish a frugal society.

What is sustainable architecture?

The two main characteristics of sustainable architecture are permanence and low energy consumption.

While the volume of materials needed to construct any given area will not vary too much, differences in the quality of building materials can result in buildings having hugely differing lifespans. The Earth’s resources are limited, and fossil fuels are non-renewable. Bricks, steel and concrete used in buildings represent not only the consumption of materials, but also the energy that has gone into making them. Buying a home is the number one aim for most Chinese people – a home will be one’s largest expenditure and is where most of one’s savings are locked up. If high-quality building materials are used, and buildings would have a lifespan of 70 or even over 100 years, then we will be able to leave behind a significant amount of material and energy for future generations. This would bring not only a financial saving, but also would conserve resources. If low-quality building materials are used, however, and buildings have short lifespans, we will work all our lives to leave nothing behind for our children. And in terms of energy and natural resources, this is an enormous waste.

The other important aspect of sustainable architecture is low energy consumption. People need their homes within a comfortable temperature range, and in China there are large areas that need central heating in winter and air-conditioning in summer. Central heating and air-conditioning both require a direct consumption of energy which is regular and constantly flowing.

We can see that sustainable architecture requires not only that building materials be long-lasting, but also that they be able to maintain temperatures inside the building and not allow wasteful outflows of energy. Such materials, which guarantee residents’ quality of life, are extremely effective in limiting energy consumption, and are key to establishing a frugal society.

Barriers

The reform era, particularly in the last 10 years, has seen the demolition of old buildings – and the construction of new ones – on an unprecedented scale. But most of these new buildings are of inferior quality; they have a short lifespan and are high energy consumers. In any Chinese city you might care to name, you can see the large-scale demolition of buildings that break building regulations. According to statistics from the Beijing Environmental Bureau, 4.5 million square metres of illegal buildings were demolished in 2005; 3 million square metres of demolition are expected by the end of this year. If we assume that on average each person has 25 square metres of living space, this means demolishing buildings for 300,000 people in just two years.

The first reason for such extensive demolition is planning deficiencies. This means that the buildings had no overall plan, or there was an overall plan but no detailed plan, or plans existed but were not implemented. Particularly problematic is that under the current system, whenever a new group of government leaders comes into power, old plans are discarded for new, the effect of which is the same as having no plan at all.

The second reason is that there is no profit in building long-lasting buildings. Architecture should mean planning for 100 years into the future, but with the current political circumstances and property rights system causing uncertainty about the future – even five or 10 years from now – it is easy for investors and property developers to overlook buildings’s lifespan. China’s current building stock stands at over 40 billion square metres, and each year work is completed on another 2 billion, but the average lifespan of residential buildings is only 30 years. Reinforcing or refurbishing older buildings is less profitable than building from scratch, so older buildings are simply knocked down. It is interesting that with China’s rapidly transforming cities, not many traditional Chinese buildings are left standing, but European buildings built in China are almost all being retained.

Thirdly, the renewal of buildings in the countryside – home to 800 million people – is occurring at an even faster rate than in the cities. Here, even less attention is being paid to creating long-lasting buildings with low energy consumption. In the relatively developed areas of east China’s Zhejiang province, one can tell the ages of homes just by looking – almost none are more than 20 years old. When these structures are built, the concept of energy-saving homes barely enters into the equation. With the construction of China’s “New Socialist Countryside”, and the increase in rural residents’ living standards, the sustainability of rural buildings will become an even more prominent issue.

Fourthly, the fact that only the buildings’ appearance and main structure – not energy-saving capabilities – are taken into account in construction and consumption of residential buildings, means that huge amounts of energy are wasted in the home. Temperatures in south China can reach 40 degrees Celsius in summer, but double-glazing is almost never seen. Energy-saving features need to be considered when homes are still in the construction stage. The cost of installing such features later on is many times what it would be if they were built into the structures to start with.

Potential savings

Waste in building construction squanders China’s material resources, energy and manpower. So what potential savings could be made if the principles of sustainable architecture were put into practice?

In the UK, the average lifespan of a building is 132 years. Even some of New York’s skyscrapers have been standing for more than 100 years. If we assume that each person needs 50 square metres of building space (30 square metres for residential use, 20 square metres for commercial use), then China needs almost 70 billion square metres of building space. With the current average lifespan of buildings at 30 years, then that means 2.3 billion square metres of building space has to be replaced every year. In 2006, China’s steel consumption exceeded 400 million tonnes. Concrete consumption was over 1.4 billion tonnes, and energy consumption was the equivalent of 2.5 billion tonnes of coal. If the average building lifespan increased to 100 years, then China would only need to replace 700 million square metres of building space each year. We could also save 100 million tonnes of steel every year. The corresponding figures for potential savings in concrete, bricks, tiles and structural ceramics are even more astonishing.

Sustainable architecture also provides potential savings in energy consumed by heating and air conditioning. Only 10% to 15% of buildings constructed in China in recent years meet national energy-saving targets. Of the 40 billion square metres of urban buildings, 95% are classified as high energy consumers. Tests carried out in the city of Tianjin showed that residential compounds whose buildings met national standards could reduce energy used for heating by up to 30%. If all the buildings in Tianjin met energy-saving targets, 1 million tonnes of coal could be saved every winter. And even greater savings could be made in the summer, when air conditioning is used. Compared to Tianjin, most regions in the country have longer periods in the year when heating or air conditioning are used, but their quality of buildings is lower. Tianjin has a population of 10 million. Assuming that 1 billion people across the country use heating in winter or air conditioning in summer, a conservative extrapolation from the Tianjin figures means that if all buildings met national energy-saving standards, China could save at least 100 million tonnes of coal every year. But if improvements were made to buildings’ heat retention and plumbing, and the efficiency of heat generators was improved, energy consumed in heating north China’s buildings could be reduced by 60% to 70%. By 2020, the energy used in buildings in China will reach the equivalent of 1 billion tonnes of coal; a 30% reduction in energy use could lead to savings of 300 million tonnes of coal equivalent.

Promoting green building

Sustainable architecture needs to make use of systematic planning and implementation, market forces and research into science and technology in order to improve building lifespan and energy efficiency.

Large amounts of investment go into property; it is a durable commodity for families. Government policies need to take the long term into account, and focus on practical implementation. The legal status of real estate needs to be defined and must not be allowed to alter with changes in political leadership. Plans need to be detailed, and there needs to be an increase in transparency and practicality in planning. Secondly, real estate property rights need to be clarified, in particular the legal protection of these rights, and their degree of permanence. Only then can the permanence of architecture be respected by investors, building contractors, and those who use and own the buildings. Thirdly, the law needs to be strictly enforced. Where buildings break regulations, everyone involved should bear the legal responsibility. Currently, the only way of enforcing the law is though demolition, with tax-payers footing the bill.

Buildings are a commodity, and as such need to be subject to market regulations and incentives. Firstly, investors should not be offered high rates of discount or allowances for depreciation. In other countries, mortgages can be paid back over 35 years or even longer, since real estate is an immovable asset and durable commodity. If discount rates are low, then investors will take quality into account, and plan for the long term. Secondly, the market needs to be subject to greater supervision, inferior or counterfeit goods and shoddy workmanship need to be stamped out. Thirdly, consumers need to be provided with comprehensive information detailing lifespan of buildings and energy efficiency in order that they can make good purchasing decisions. Fourthly, waste and extravagant consumption need to be contained by using a price mechanism in tax collection. For example, if an individual’s electricity consumption from air conditioning exceeds a certain level, an energy tax could be levied. The use of clean energy sources like solar and geothermal power should be encouraged to fossil fuel consumption. Subsidies could also be used to encourage greater energy efficiency.

Sustainable architecture will be impossible without technological innovation. The lifespan of buildings must keep on being improved with technological advances in building design and materials. New building materials should be developed, which could hugely improve energy efficiency. Technological improvements in ventilation and central heating systems could guarantee supplies of fresh air without having to open windows and doors, which leads to energy loss. We also need to consider the reuse of building materials to reduce waste when older buildings are renewed.

Improving the lifespan and energy efficiency of buildings and implementing the concept of sustainable architecture could, with minimum effort, lead us towards the great gains of the “frugal society”.

Source: Pan Jiahua via ChinaDialogue.

Climate Change and Sustainable Tourism

October 23, 2007

to

October 25, 2007

Location: Holiday Inn Atrium, Singapore

The 18th GSETA Asia-Pacific Regional Seminar 2007, Climate Change and Sustainable Tourism, will be held in Singapore by the Germany-Singapore Environmental Technology Agency (GSETA). The seminar aims to increase the awareness on climate change, and explores how the tourism industry can help in mitigating climate change and benefit by taking proactive actions to achieve sustainable tourism. Registration and payment via the GSETA website.