G.R.I.N

It had to happen - a recycling initiative with a cringe worthy acronym.

This one is run by Veolia - I had a quick look at the site: in summary it seems like points are awarded based on the weight of recyclables collected at specified collection bins (no points awarded if there are more than 50% of non-recyclables and contaminated items in the bin), which are in turn tagged to the address of the landed household or HDB block (at this stage, only within Tanglin Bukit Merah and Pasir Ris - Tampines). These points can then be redeemed for rewards - reward vendors at this stage appear to be Ben & Jerry's, Home-Fix, Greenviron, Purple Sage, and Skechers.

You also need to create an account to receive your points. Your account is tied to your SP Services account number. What is not clear is how points are allocated within a residential block - does every resident within the block get the points based on the total weight of collected recyclables? Or is it averaged among the number of residents in the block (which would presumably be more fair, since there are a lot more people in a residential block than there are in a landed household). One other thing I found weird was that landed households get a 120L bin, whereas HDB blocks get a 660L recycling bin... but surely there are more than 5.5x the number of people in a HDB block than in a landed household?

Vege wall

Saw this - literally - green wall at the renovated 6 Battery Road lobby. Not sure what environmental benefits it has (presumably fresh oxygen in the day time, temperature regulation of sorts possibly...) but it was literally green.

New all in one recycling bins

New Veolia recycling bins (well not so new now... but I'm just putting this up) seem to eat everything - no more separate bins for paper / plastic / glass.

Roots & Shoots

A program by Jane Goodall to educate youth, link here.

"Want a way out of the recession? Create jobs by saving resources"

Saw this in the Business Times today. Author is "visiting senior research fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore, and the author of 'How Asia can Shape the World: From the Era of Plenty to the Era of Scarcities'. He is also adjunct professor at the Singapore Management University & Copenhagen Business School." Not sure I follow the arguments in the article, might have to pick up the book one day.

"The core is high labour costs with low prices on protecting the environment and saving resources. This reflects a perception of scarce labour and abundant resources. The result is efforts to save labour (increase conventional productivity) and hold the floodgates open for use of resources. And it worked; that's why unemployement refuses to fall - we are successful in our endeavours to reduce labour per unit of output. On top of that, current wage levels make it cost-effective to invest in emerging economies. Resources are still priced in as a plentiful factor irrespective of recent hikes in commodity prices telling a different story. The price mechanism does not punish, as it should, using more resources than necessary per unit of output. Despite various financial incentives, it is cheap to pollute; consequently, waste flows into the environment. The combined result is unemployment, resource waste and deterioration of the environment... The new paradigm calls for exactly the opposite. Rising scarcities of commodities make it profitable to cut down o nthe use of resources in the production process. Abundance of labour... calls for more use of manpower. The key is to face the music and start the politically agonosing, economically necessary and ecologically imperative process of changing relative factor prices. Labour costs (wages) must fall relative to commodity prices - otherwise it won't happen and we will stay where we are right now, like it or not."

Waste Management In Taipei

A piece in the Straits Times print edition today (Monday, 11 Apr 2011): "Trash war: Sweet smell of success". The article details Taipei's waste management system, and caught my as a Taiwanese friend had mentioned it some time back in conversation. - System was started in 2000. - 2,500 collection points at street corners throughout the city, for trash and recyclables. - Collection daily except Wed and Sat. - Most residents or shopkeeps outsource the dumping and sorting of waste to private trash collectors for a monthly fee. - 56 fixed collection centres located across Taipei City, for people who are unable to meet the scheduled pickup and whose residence / office have not outsourced their trash collection activities. - "Pay-as-you-throw" system requires households and businesses to put waste in government issue blue garbage bags sold bfor between NT$1.35 and NT$45 each, depending on size. Residents who use unauthorised bags can be fined up to NT$6,000. - Recyclables are sorted (BY HAND!) into 7 categories: PET bottles, glass bottles, plastics, aluminium and ferrous metals, paper, food scraps, clothing. Recyclables are collected free of charge.

And the results?

- Taipei's 2.7m people produced 1,619 tonnes of trash a day in 2010 vs 3,695 tonnes before 2000

- Recycling rates up from 2.4% to 43%

- Taipei's only landfill is now an ecological park, having been idle since the beginning of 2011- 3 incineration plants operating at below capacity because of less-than-expected trash

- Taipei residents pay on average NT$51 a month in 2010 vs NT$144 a decade ago

- Per capita CO2 emissions were 4.2 tonnes in 2008, lower than the average of 4.6 tonnes among 22 major Asian cities surveyed by the EIU in 2010

- System costs government NT$3.1bn a year to run, vs revenues of NT$400m from the sale of garbage bags

I think the charging for collection bags, even if for only a nominal fee, is nifty as it accomplishes 2 things - (1) the nominal charge will make most people conscious about their volume of general waste, and (2) more importantly though, it will make people conscious about separating recyclables from the general trash pool (so they use less of the chargeable trash bags). It is amazing how many people still do not make an effort to recycle, and recycling has to start from consciousness at the individual level.

A Few Snaps From HK

A few snaps from a trip to HK over the weekend:

1. Recycle Shop (somewhere in mid-levels... Wellington St?) - sells a bunch of supposedly recycled products. We were rushing and I didn't have much time to browse / listen to the storekeeper, though I recall (i) curious round bags made from either old tyres or rubber tubing, (ii) bags that the owner said were made from old rice sacks, and (iii) bags that the owner said were made from old newspaper. While (i) seemed fine and I didnt manage to have a good look at (ii), (iii) used a thin layer of plasticised old newspaper (you could choose from either the Financial Times or another local HK daily) over what appeared to be a thick sheet of new PVC lining... which made me go away wondering whether the shop was selling essentially new / minimally recycled items, masquerading as faux recycled products.

2. Swire Coca-Cola reverse vending machine - I think this is part of the Swire Coca-Cola "Every Bottle Counts" programme where you get HK$0.10 (a token amount) for every plastic bottle you put in the machine (the bottle needs to be barcoded though).

Nuclear power and the role of the government

My heart goes out to everyone in Japan after the earthquake, and the ensuing problems with the Fukushima reactor. Japan has long been my favourite country to visit and it is very sad to have to see the country and its people tested by an event of this magnitude.

Now I'll need to do a bit more research tomorrow to find out who owns TEPCO (I am pretty sure it is privately held with no or minimal government ownership), but the whole event got me thinking - what is the optimal ownership structure for something like a nuclear reactor or other piece of infrastructure whose failure could have a severe impact on the environment? Can and should such assets be privately owned? Or should the government retain some sort of ownership? Does government ownership imply such assets would be better operated and maintained?

Various allegations against TEPCO have emerged, including (i) basic safety and maintenance lapses prior to the earthquake, (ii) that when the earthquake happened, TEPCO delayed using seawater to cool the reactors because this action would have made the reactors unusable and inoperable (TEPCO was basically trying to prevent a write-off of its assets), and (iii) government civil defence and military forces were not called in until a fairly late stage, because they were not requested by TEPCO.

Now, could some of these problems and lapses have been avoided if the plant had been government owned and operated? The Japanese government reportedly helped cover up some of TEPCO's inadequate inspection and maintenance activities prior to the quake, though if the plant had been government owned and operated to begin with, perhaps these lapses wouldn't have occurred in the first place. Likewise, the decision to use seawater to cool the reactors may have been made earlier at a government owned plant, where profitability was not a concern.

Half A Teaspoon + ShowerWatch

A few months ago, I read about a water bottle with a built in filter mechanism, called 321 Water. I had a look at the website, and found the product was developed by a company called Half A Teaspoon. A viewing of the Half A Teaspoon website led to 2 observations.

1. Product Development

Besides 321 Water, Half A Teaspoon also produces a product called ShowerWatch, which the company describes as a "4-minute shower timer which creates awareness of time in the shower and stimulates conscious use of water" (btw is there a way to paste special into Blogger, so that I can paste text into my blog post and have it take on the same format as the text in the post, rather than the format of the text in the site it is from?). This got me thinking of that old joke about the US vs the Russian astronaut, whereby the US astronaut spends years funding research to develop a pen and ink that can write in space, while the Russian astronaut just uses a pencil. In this case, while Half A Teaspoon states that their products are based on Eco Design principles, the device is ultimately electronic, i.e. it has some sort of LED panel, and it will use batteries.

So - why not just use an hourglass?

2. For Profit?

I'm still not sure my thoughts on this point are very coherent, but thought I would pen them down anyway.

When I viewed it a few months ago, the Half A Teaspoon site described the company's philosophy as (I'm paraphrasing here) something along the lines of turning enough profit to continue their activities, i.e. the development of eco friendly products. After viewing the site again today (I wanted to quote the exact language) it appears the philosophy has since been amended and this description is no longer there.

This got me thinking about whether I - and indeed society - have expectations that green businesses should be not-for-profit. Or at least minimal profit. Sure, certain large scale industries like electric cars and wind turbine and solar panel manufacturers are definitely for profit, but I have a hunch (and maybe this isn't true) that when it comes to smaller scale initiatives, people may expect these projects to be driven by desire to help rather than desire to turn a profit.

War

I eyeballed an article in the papers the other day, but forgot to take note of it. Jumped on the web to see if I could find it... apparently the US Marines in Afghanistan use 800,000 gallons of fuel a DAY??!!! Geez.

Doinky Doodles

This shop got mention in the papers today - had a quick squiz at the site http://www.doinkydoodles.com, basically a quaint little shop whose owner reworks second hand clothing into new items. I might bring down my old boxers and turn them into patchwork pillowcases.

Plastic - Too good to throw away

Excellent article in the Straits Times today by a Susan Freinkel who is noted as being the author of "Plastic: A Toxic Love Story" (forthcoming). Gives an interesting perspective on plastic and its origins:

Some excerpts, which I thought were very well written and very insightful (reminder to get myself a copy of her book":

"Originally, plastic was hailed for its potential to reduce humankind's heavy environmental footprint. The earliest plastics were invented as substitutes for dwindling supplies of natural materials like ivory or tortoise shell... When the American John Wesley Hyatt patented celluloid in 1869, his company pledged that the new man-made material, used in jewellery, combs, buttons and other items, would bring 'respite' to the elephant and tortoise because it would 'no longer be necessary to ransack the earth in pursuit of substances which are constantly growing scarcer'."

"Today, plastic is perceived as nature's nemesis. But a generic distaste for plastic can muddy our thinking about the trade-offs involved when we replace plastic with other materials."

"Unfortunately, as the plastics industry incessantly points out, the bans typically lead to a huge increase in the use of paper bags, which also have environmental drawbacks. But the bigger issue is not what the bags are made from, but what they are made for. Both are designed, absurdly, for that brief one-time trip from the store to the front door. In other words, plastics are not necessarily bad for the environment: It is the way we tend to make and use them that is the problem."

"Plastic has become synonymous with cheap and worthless, when in fact those chains of hydrocarbons ought to be regarded as one of the most valuable substances on the planet. If we understood plastic's true worth, we would stop wasting it on trivial throwaways and take better advantage of what this versatile material can do for us... appreciate that lightweight plastics take less energy to produce and transport than many other materials."

"Yeet we cannot hope to achieve plastic's promise for the 21st century if we stick with wasteful 20th century habits of plastic production and consumption."

She also mentions "cloth sandwich wrappers" as one of the products that people are buying to reduce plastic usage. Cool!

Simply Living

Had some time to kill before dinner at Bonta for Restaurant Week (dinner was very unexciting)and did a quick walk around River Valley. Saw a colourful shopfront amidst the dodgy pubs and wandered into Simply Living. Nice little space, offering a range of "eco and ethical lifestyle choices through products that are environment-safe, encourage reusing, recycling and reducing, and/or support fair trade practices" (got that from their business card).

In other words - a range of bags and carriers made from recycled materials (think Freitag, except these used things like Cambodian fishnets, inner tyre tubes, etc), small selection of organic foods, various fair trade items, eco friendly cleaning products, etc etc. Check out http://www.simplylivinglifeshop.com/ for more info. Chris Chua who was manning the shop was very engaging and clearly passionate about what he is doing.

One thing that did catch my eye was a a range of products produced by a Singapore Management University initiative, in conjunction with a plastics company in Jakarta. Basically a range of functional items (notepad holder, coin purse, pencil case, etc) produced from discarded plastic. Very colourful, very cool.

Mighty Wallet

Saw this Mighty Wallet in a bookshop the other day. Packaging said it is made of Tyvek, and "recyclable".

I jumped on the net and went to http://www.tyvek.com/ figuring (mistakenly) that it was the company manufacturing the wallets. Got routed to a Dupont site - Tyvek it turns out is a material produced by Dupont (like Kevlar etc).

I thought initially wow cool a recyclable wallet. But then after having a quick look at the Dupont website at http://www2.dupont.com/Tyvek/en_US/sales_support/recycling.html and http://recycletyvek.wm.com/home.cfm, it seems you can't just pop it into a recycling bin for paper or plastic - you need to get a Waste Management Tyvek Kit! How lame is that? And how is that recycling if you need to get a kit to recycle? Fine if you are doing it on a big scale... but in this case, for the dude with the Mighty Wallet, buying a kit hardly makes sense. Or what if you live in an area where there isn't a Tyvek recycling programme?

Note - A quick check on Wikipedia notes that "Despite the fact that some Tyvek products are marked with the #2 resin-code for HDPE, it is not usually collected with plastic bottles as part of municipal curbside recycling programs." - Wonder why that is?

Airline ziplock bags for liquids aerosols and gels

I have always had issues with this requirement, for a number of reasons: (i) what must be the phenomenal number of transparent ziplock bags it produced, (ii) what must be the equally phenomenal number of "security sealed" bags it produced (for when you buy liquids at airport duty free), (iii) the inconvenience it causes especially if you don't want to have check-in baggage, (iv) the hassle of having to go find travel sized bottles of stuff to fit within the 100ml rule. and (v) the fact that I have never quite been convinced what exactly this requirement was supposed to accomplish.

At the beginning, my discomfort / annoyance was mitigated by the fact that the policy was strictly policed, and I always figured there was probably some good reason (that I wasn't able to see) for it.

But on a couple of recent trips (and probably for quite some time back now that I think about it) I noticed that airport shops were still giving out these transparent ziplock bags, but no one was checking and no one seemed to care that ALL your LAGs were actually in these little bags.

Which made me think again - what could this rule possibly have hoped to accomplish? Even when it was strictly being policed, if you had say forgotten to put a bottle of some liquid in the ziplock bag, it would show up on the x-ray machine and they would inspect anyway.

The only thing I can think of is that requiring people to put their liquids in this little bag would make it faster for customs officials to examine all your LAGs and make sure you weren't carrying a potential bomb. But since there is no penalty for not putting all your liquids in the ziplock, I'm sure a lot of people don't do it, in which case why not just rely on the x-ray machine? Second, why limit bottle sizes to 100ml? (the requirement is for LAGs to be in containers of maximum size of 100ml, and to be in a ziplock back of size 1L) Why not just determine the maximum acceptable volume of LAGs per person (presumably a bit less than 1L since you wouldnt be able to fit 10 x 100ml bottles in a 1L bag due to packaging) and cap it based on that?

Having said all that, I accept that policy setting (especially for something as international and on such a large scale as airline travel) is extremely difficult and you will never have something that everyone agrees with.

But now that the rule is not being strictly policed, why not just scrap it altogether.

En-bloc fever

This came up in a chat the other day with a friend, when I brought up the topic of building design and how much wastage (in terms of renovation, repair, etc) emerges because of poor building design and construction.

The conversation broaded to construction in general, and to en-bloc developments. For those international readers (note to self, international readers are a big ask given hardly anyone reads this blog) who might not be familiar with the term, "en-bloc" development refers to a process (common in recent years) in land-scarce Singapore where developers purchase a site (usually condominium) from owners in a collective sale requiring consent from a minimum 80% of unit owners. The development is then torn down, and rebuilt typically in a much denser fashion that maximises "plot ratio" (the maximum permittable ratio of built up area to land area). Singapore is a young country and often the development being torn down and rebuilt is relatively young, less than 20 years old.

A huge waste of concrete, the production of which is resource intensive and far from environmentally friendly.

Standardised mobile phone chargers in the EU

This article appeared in the Straits Times yesterday - a very big step forward and something that should be adopted outside of the EU / Europe. In a nutshell, the EU has managed to line up 14 phone manufacturers (representing ~90% of mobile phones sold) who have agreed to use microUSB mobile phone chargers as an industry standard. Think of all the crap that is going to save - no need to bin old phone chargers, no need to bundle phone chargers with new phones, and so on.