Green initiatives merely lip service?

Reader disappointed by government website
Today Online 30 Jul 08;

I REFER to “Sustainable if costs don’t tip the scales” (July 29).

Finally, the public can participate in the formulation of, and possibly even influence, policies surrounding the adoption of green living in Singapore.

I eagerly visited the site www.sustainablesingapore.gov.sg, but was dismayed at the small space provided for feedback. That says it all.

Either the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Sustainable Development is not expecting much feedback, or they are not expecting Singaporeans to think very deeply about this issue. I know of quite a few people who could probably write a thesis on the implementation of green living in Singapore and back it up with facts, figures, examples etc. How would such carefully thought through and well-researched opinions be submitted through this site?

I would also like to propose that such feedback be conducted via a forum platform, where the suggestions can be posted for all to see. Other members of the public can then also give their opinions on various suggestions. This format will allow the participants to exchange opinions and debate the merits of various suggestions, and in so doing, create a more vibrant and dynamic feedback process. It would also be a good step towards encouraging active citizen participation in issues that matter to them.

Public input for green plans
Straits Times 30 Jul 08;

HOW do you convince people to do the right thing? How do you change behaviour? Of course, there is the top-down approach, through legislation. But is it effective? The answer has to be, not always. For this reason, we welcome the approach the Government is taking in plans to build a more environmentally friendly Singapore: Find out from individuals, businesses and civic groups what they think, what they are passionate about and what their priorities are. Then, work with them. With such a 'buy-in', initiatives and plans will likely have greater support from the very start, as the public is involved in influencing the choice of programmes and of their design. In other words, the key is to determine the confluence between grassroots concerns and wants, and government intentions.

Towards this end, there will be opportunities through the Internet and forums for the public to share views and possible solutions to environmental challenges. For instance, feedback on home design for rubbish disposal and the habits might prove useful in designing ways that make it easier for households to recycle. And are there cycling groups out there, and what do they think it'll take to make the bike a commuting option? Enthusiastic public engagement with policy planners can lead to fresh ways of looking at old problems, and new insights from those closest to the issues, from consumers to small and big businesses and volunteer groups. The important thing is to get as many people involved as possible, so plans have the greatest resonance. This, however, is where difficulty might lie. Not all suggestions are workable, and they need to be sorted out without alienating people. This will take time and effort. Even before that, will the public respond in the number needed? While there is a good number of people who will relish the opportunity to have a say, there are also those who prefer to leave it to someone else. So getting people to become more involved will need some work.

It's one thing to seek responses to questions in a survey, and another to open up a dialogue with stakeholders. The former offers the possibility of crafting the best solution from a set of options. The latter, however, can offer solutions that hadn't even yet been considered. Whether it's energy conservation, recycling or reducing car use, changing entrenched habits isn't easy. But if the public is given a stake in how this might be reshaped, the bigger is the chance that it will stick.

Going green in Singapore
Business Times 30 Jul 08;

THE English economist, Thomas Malthus, famously if provocatively, asserted that world population growth would outrun food supply - and that this catastrophe would occur by the middle of the 19th century.

While his predictions fortunately didn't come to pass, the essence of his message did strike a chord - it still does today - and 'Malthusian' ideas and theories later proved highly influential in not only socioeconomics but even evolutionary science. Malthus laid bare the notion that human development, at the rate it was going even back in the 1800s, was unsustainable; mankind was living beyond its means.

Some 200 years on, the concept of sustainable development - now a rather loaded term that encompasses inter-related global issues such as environmental degradation, poverty and inequality - is a key UN priority, the subject of numerous global summits, and a policy initiative for many countries.

Singapore, as a near-mature First World economy in many respects, has now joined the global community in embracing the goal of sustainable development. It takes a straightforward approach: sustainable development for Singapore means 'being able to support future economic and population growth while maintaining a quality living environment that is clean, green and healthy', the government says. The motivations are both aspirational and plainly realist, driven as much by the Republic's vision to be an attractive, lively and liveable global city, as by the challenges of meeting growing resource demands amid severe constraints and rising fuel costs.

The committee of ministers leading the big drive has identified three main areas where 'green' initiatives will be focused - public transport, at the workplace, and where (or 'the way') Singaporeans 'live and play', which just about cover all bases. The ideas out of early feedback so far also hint at the costs and concerns involved in a subject that may still be a little foreign to most, both business and consumers. The Green Mark for property developers, for instance - which carries a cash grant of up to $3 million for green building and design features - has not seen widespread adoption. And already, the efforts to encourage greater use of public transport probably simply spells, for car owners here, ever-rising costs of driving, from ERP to parking charges.

Most interesting yet may well be the plans to promote cycling as a means of commuting, given the tweaks in road and footpath design - and pedestrian and driver attitudes - they entail. Indeed, the efforts on all fronts come down to, as the government notes, encouraging people and industries to adopt practices that are sustainable in the long term - a movement that calls for strong public education, and which, for the business sector, may well fail to gain ground in the face of more pressing priorities such as bottomline needs.

But both business and individuals must come around to the fact that going green in Singapore is no tree-hugging baloney; it is entirely in its own long-term best interests.