Time for Action!
Round up for Coastal Clean up on 20 Sep, on the singapore celebrates our reefs blog
Blue Magpie sighted at Mt Faber
from Bird Ecology Study Group blog
New articles on Nature in Singapore
A new record of an ovulid snail, breeding of the little tern and of the zebra dove. Links and more on the Raffles Museum News blog
Singapore and rising seas
on the wild shores of singapore blog
Michael Richardson, Straits Times 15 Sep 08;
AS POLICYMAKERS plan ahead in Singapore and other major port cities, one of the most vexing questions they face is how much the sea level will rise.
The stakes are high. The number of people in 136 big port cities around the world is expected to grow threefold by the 2070s. If the prediction of scientists on global warming is correct, port cities will endure the intense effects of climate change, including sea-level rise, violent storms, flooding and land subsidence, according to a recent study for the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
The study, published in July, forecast that the value of flood-exposed economic assets in these cities could reach US$35 trillion (S$50 trillion) by the 2070s, approximately 9 per cent of projected global gross domestic product (GDP) then.
Bear in mind that the great port cities are often hubs of political and financial power - New York, London and Rotterdam; and in Asia, Osaka-Kobe, Shanghai and Mumbai.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) advising United Nations member states concluded late last year that the sea level would probably be somewhere between 18cm and 59cm higher by the end of this century than now, after a rise of 17cm in the 20th century.
The IPCC projection took account of water expanding in the oceans as it warmed. But it excluded additions to the ocean from water as the ice sheets that cover Greenland and the Antarctic melt. Yet these sources might produce the largest amounts of extra water flowing into the sea and adding to its volume. If the vast ice sheets melted completely, the sea level would rise by about 70m.
In a recent issue of Science magazine, a team of American glaciologists calculated how fast ice sheet glaciers would have to flow to raise sea levels by a given number of metres, and then considered whether these flow rates were plausible or even physically possible. The latter consideration is relevant because in Greenland and, to a lesser extent, in Antarctica, ice loss is limited by the number and width of rock-bound channels that form outlets for glaciers as they move, normally very slowly, from the land to the sea.
The team took account of the sea-level rise expected from ice melting in Greenland, Antarctica and the world's smaller glaciers and ice caps, as well as thermal expansion of the oceans. It concluded that the most likely scenario was a total sea-level rise of approximately 1m to 2m by 2100.
If these glaciologists are right, what will the impact be? The Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research in Britain has warned that Asia - because of its vast coastline, many mega-deltas, big port cities and dense population - will be by far the most seriously affected region by a sea-level rise of this order of magnitude. It has calculated that a 1m increase in sea level would inundate more than 800,000 sq km of land in Asia, displacing more than 100 million people and causing a potential loss of nearly US$450 billion in GDP.
Of course, the impact would vary from country to country, depending on a nation's geography and ability to protect its urban centres, people and assets in low-lying coastal zones.
A couple of years ago, the World Bank commissioned a group of specialists to assess the consequences of sea-level rise in the range of 1m to 5m for 84 coastal developing countries. The specialists used high-resolution digital mapping to estimate the impact on each country's land, population, agriculture, cities and GDP.
Among the 84 countries surveyed were 12 in South-east Asia and North-east Asia that have low-lying coasts. The researchers concluded that within this century, hundreds of millions of people in the worst affected of the 84 countries are likely to be displaced, and that the associated economic and ecological damage will be severe for many.
In East Asia, Vietnam will be hardest hit. If the sea level were to rise by 5m, 16 per cent of Vietnam's land area would be inundated and 35 per cent of its more than 84 million people forced to move, resulting in a GDP loss of around 37 per cent. Even a rise of 1m in the sea level would displace nearly 11 per cent of Vietnamese and wipe out 10 per cent of their economy.
In relative terms, China was among the least affected of the 12 East Asian economies covered in the World Bank study, which was published last year. But in absolute terms, the damage would still be significant. It would be concentrated in low-lying areas along China's highly industrialised and urbanised eastern seaboard.
The OECD report found that 15 of the top 20 port cities ranked in terms of population exposed to coastal flooding from climate-linked storm surge and rises in sea level would be in Asia, with four of them in China.
The report said 13 of the top 20 port cities with assets exposed to coastal flooding in the 2070s would be in Asia, with six of them in China. The combined value of their flood-exposed assets is forecast to be almost US$9.2 trillion, with US$1.2 trillion of that amount in Hong Kong.
Singapore was not covered by the World Bank study. In the OECD report, it was given a relatively low risk rating for both population and assets exposed to coastal flooding in 2005 and in the 2070s. For example, Singapore's climate-exposed assets in the 2070s are projected to be worth around US$21 billion, putting it at No. 79 in the risk ranking for the world's 136 major port cities.
Two United States-based researchers concluded in 2005 that Singapore had the resources to protect its developed land zones from sea-level rise and inundation, and would be able to carry out effective adaptation measures.
The researchers found that the cost of protecting Singapore's developed coast - estimated at up to US$5.7 million per year by 2050, and as much as US$16.8 million per year by 2100 - was much less than the value of the land and assets at risk from coastal flooding.
One of the conclusions of the OECD report is that the likely impact of climate change and sea-level rise needs to be integrated into both coastal flood risk management and urban development strategies of vulnerable countries. Advance planning and investment are required because big projects, like the mechanical barriers near the mouth of the River Thames to protect greater London from tidal and storm surges, take 30 years or more from planning to completion.
The writer is an energy and security specialist at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
That goal is not in the plans for now; drive to make desalinated and reclaimed water more price competitive
Lin Yanqin Today Online 15 Sep 08;
SINCE independence, Singaporeans have lived with the belief that the future would be bleak without a pipeline, literally, to Malaysia. With limited catchment areas on the island, Singapore has needed to get water supply from its neighbour.
But decades on, does this assumption still hold?
The issue will be raised today in Parliament, as MP Lam Pin Min asks for an update on Singapore’s effort in achieving self-sufficiency in water.
Since the mid-90s, when it conducted feasibility studies on desalination, the Government has pushed to diversify water sources in order to secure water sustainability. In 2002, NEWater officially entered the national lexicon when 60,000 Singaporeans drank it at the National Day Parade.
Now, Singapore has four “national taps” — desalination is also a reality — and her water supplies seem to be secure, even if the tap of imported water is turned off. But self-sustainability, while theoretically possible, is not in the plans for now.
“We can be self-sufficient if there is the need,” said Mr Yap Kheng Guan, PUB’s 3P Network director. “But it’s not a goal. We’ll make use of all sources available to us.”
Singapore’s water agreements with Malaysia — signed in 1961 and 1962 — come up for renewal in 2011 and 2061 respectively. The Government will let the first agreement lapse.
Water independence through desalinated and reclaimed water comes at a price, though — both are still more expensive than treating imported and catchment water. Desalination, in particular, costs around twice that of NEWater, said Mr Yap. And how long it will take for both processes to become more cost efficient remains to be seen.
So, having four national taps helps to keep the cost of water down for consumers, pointed out Hyflux chief technology officer Fong Chun Hoe, who told :Today:: “If it’s more cost effective, it makes sense economically to keep that tap turned on.”
Meanwhile, the push continues to make desalinated and reclaimed water more price competitive.
The Environment and Water Industry Development Council awarded $4 million recently to Siemens Water Technology to develop a more energy-efficient desalination process within the next three years.
Siemen’s vice president (research and development) Dr Ruediger Knauf said the company’s work on electrically-driven processes, rather than traditional methods such as reverse osmosis, could mean price competitiveness within five years. “For other methods of desalination, costs could fall over the next five years, but probably marginally,” he told :Today:. “But the timeline is really a moving target.”
According to Hyflux’s Mr Fong, the price competitiveness of desalinated or recycled water here also depends on the cost of treating water from its traditional sources. “Depending on the quality of the water, costs can go up if the water requires more processes to become potable. So there are other variable factors when it comes to the question of cost competitiveness. Pollution will be an issue,” he said.
He believes it is possible to see desalinated water become price competitive within the decade. “In fact, with the tremendous push and amount of money going into research ... I won’t be surprised to see developments within three years.”
Considerable investments are also being made to further develop Singapore’s catchment areas. When the $226-million Marina Barrage is in operation, the new downtown reservoir will be able to meet 10 per cent of Singapore’s water needs at current usage levels. :
Together with the future Punggol and Serangoon reservoirs, it will increase the size of Singapore’s water catchment area from half to two-thirds of the island’s land surface.
“Years back, we didn’t look at water from urban catchments — such as canals and sewers — as drinking water, but we now have the technology to treat it,” said Mr Yap, who explained that water from canals will be part of the water flowing into Marina Reservoir. “It (the barrage) is a sign of what’s possible.”
Mr Yap is also proud of how Singapore has managed its water systems, particularly in reducing water leakages. “We’ve kept out loss of water due to leakage of below 5 per cent; in some countries it can reach30 or even 40 per cent,” he said. “So part of managing water supplies efficiently is making sure the systems are functioning smoothly.”
The fact that Singapore has moved to secure its water supplies, however, should not mean that the average Singaporean can become complacent about water use, he stressed. “You shouldn’t squander it away,” he said.
He hopes PUB programmes such as Active, Beautiful and Clean Waters will remind Singaporeans why conserving water and keeping it clean is important. “When they’re enjoying the water and the facilities, hopefully they’ll come to value it,” he said.
Dog rental business targets pet lovers who are unsure or too busy to own a dog full-time
Ho Lian-Yi, The New Paper 15 Sep 08;
DISNEY is a cheerful West Highland White Terrier that will sit down obediently whenever anyone pets it.
The dog has been trained to obey whoever is with her because, well, it's her job.
Disney is a pet-for-rent.
She is part of a novel business that dog trainer Herbert Lim, 41, came up earlier this year to serve potential owners who may have doubts whether they are fit to take care of pets in the long term.
The service has 10 dogs, ranging from golden retrievers to jack russell terriers, for rent.
One of Mr Lim's clients is 23-year-old sales executive Bryan Teo, who takes Disney home three times a week.
The dog lover, who as a child had a jack russell terrier, said his busy lifestyle made it hard for him to have a pet.
'I work irregular hours, so it's imposssible to have a dog permanently,' said Mr Teo, who works in sales.
To rent a dog, you first have to pay a membership fee of $100. Members then pay an additional $50 to rent a pet on weekends, or $30 for a weekday.
The scheme, called Easy Dogz, also provides freefood, toys and other accessories such as a collar and leash, with the dog .
Mr Lim said he has been working with the Singapore Corporation of Rehabilitative Enterprises (Score) since 2003 to employ prisoners to train his dogs.
'I was thinking, instead of putting the dogs in a pound, why not lease them out?' he said.
Rental business in US, Japan
He wants to tap two markets - people, like Mr Teo, who love dogs but have no time to own one, and those who are thinking of having a dog and want to 'test' whether they are ready for one.
His business plan is not original. Renting pets is available both in the US and Japan.
Back in 2002, a pet shop here implemented a similar scheme, but the authorities said pet shops are not allowed to rent out their animals.
It is not clear whether that particular shop is still in business.
Calls to the shop went unanswered.
Mr Lim has more than 20 clients so far - mostly professionals in their 30s.
The dogs have all been abandoned by their formerowners.
When they're not being rented, Mr Lim keeps the smaller dogs in a rented apartment at Dover Road.
He keeps the bigger dogs at a kennel at Lim Chu Kang.
Mr Lim conducts compulsory lessons on how to handle a dog at a customer's home before the client is allowed to rent a pet.
This allows him to assess whether the clients know how to handle the dogs and whether their homes are suitable to keep dogs.
As part of the deal, those who lose the dogs or injure them have to compensate Mr Lim.
But even if a client grows attached to the dog, he cannot buy it.
Mr Lim said these dogs cost a lot of money to train and are not for sale.
But he will be happy to help the client train a dog similar to the one they rented.
Mr Lim said rent-a-dog is a situation where everyone wins.
It generates income to pay the prisoners who train the dogs, busy dog lovers get to play with their four-legged friends and the dogs get companionship, he said.
At the Singapore Botanical Gardens on Thursday, where Mr Lim and Mr Teo met The New Paper on Sunday, Disney happily rolled around in Mr Teo's grasp.
'Some people may not like the idea of getting a dog rented out... but wouldn't it be worse to have an abandoned dog caged every day, waiting for an organisation to end its life?' Mr Lim said.
Disney, for example, was abandoned by an expatriate before Mr Lim adopted her.
Now she is one of the 10 dogs Mr Lim specially trained to adapt to different environments.
Like the other dogs, Disney has been toilet trained, taught not to bite furniture, not to bark, to be used to life in both apartments and landed property, as well as being used to getting touched by all kinds of people.
Mr Teo said when he first rented Disney, she 'did not entirely feel at home'.
But she got used to the situation in half an hour, he said.
Nowadays, Disney shuttles between Mr Lim's Dover Road apartment, Mr Teo's home and the home of another female client.
AVA vet: Rental dogs treated like commodity
HERE, like in the US, the emergence of pet rental services sparked a debate.
In the US, proponents said pet rental was win-win for animals that would otherwise be caged or euthanised, while naysayers decried it as an immoral practice that was traumatic to the animals.
The Agri-Food & Veterinary Authority (AVA) in Singapore says that pet shops are not allowed to rent out animals.
Dr Leow Su Hua, AVA's Senior Veterinary Officer, said: 'Pet shops, which are licensed by AVA, are not allowed to do pet rental.'
She added: 'A rental dog may get confused and stressed with different people handling it. The dog is likely to be treated like a piece of commodity, such as a car or other rental equipment.
'This detracts from AVA's public education to promote responsible pet ownership, that 'A Pet Is For Life'.'
Dr Leow said that AVA planned to look into Mr Lim's case.
Mr Lim said he had heard similar concerns from his clients. But he assured that the dogs, unlike therapy dogs, were specially trained for this.
'I ask the clients, is it better for the dogs to have someone playing with them and the chance to go out, or be caged up?'
As for its legality, Mr Lim maintains that AVA's prohibition does not apply to him as he does not run a pet shop - he doesn't have any animals for sale.
But he also plans to get in touch with AVA and see how he can work within its guidelines.
When contacted, the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) also expressed its disapproval.
Its executive officer Deirdre Moss said it could be traumatic for dogs to have to adapt to different people and different commands.
It could get attached to people who rented it, 'only to be returned and the whole process repeated'.
For her, dog rental is 'not unlike an orphan child being passed around'.
Having sold two of its utilities to foreigners, Temasek should consider IPO for Power Seraya:
Conrad Raj, Today Online 15 Sep 08;
The sale of our power stations to foreigners seems to some as the divestment of good assets to purchase, what appears for now at least, more risky investments.
With the recent announcement that Temasek Holdings has agreed to sell the second of its three power companies, Senoko Power, to a consortium led by Japan’s Marubeni Corp for just under$4 billion, the Singapore investment company is now left with only one other major electricity producer, PowerSeraya.
According to Temasek, PowerSeraya too will be disposed off by the end of next year. Temasek had earlier sold Tuas Power to China Huaneng Group for about $4.2 billion.
On the other side of the coin, Temasek together with the Government of Singapore Investment Corp (GIC) have, in the last 12 months or so, sunk billions into buying stakes in banks like Barclays, Merrill Lynch, Citigroup and UBS. Although the value of these investments has fallen sharply since their purchase, we have been told there is no cause for alarm as these are long-term investments, some with a time horizon of 30 or so years.
There’s nothing wrong with selling our assets to foreigners. We have also been buying foreign assets throughout the world, sometimes to the chagrin of the host country.
But what concerns many of us is the feeling that good money is being thrown after bad.
In the case of the power stations, why are we selling these, not only valuable but strategic, assets to foreign investors when there are several companies here like Keppel Corp and SembCorp Industries willing to run them? These two companies were among the bidders for the two power generators, but obviously their bids were not high enough. Should price be the main criterion for strategic assets?
In fact why sell them in the first place? After all, the power stations were making good money.
For instance, Tuas Power, which was established in 1995, owns businesses in electricity generation, trading and retail services as well as the development and provision of multi-utilities and related services.
Its power generating capacity totals 2,670 megawatts, or 25 per cent of the Singapore market. For the financial year ended 31 March 2007, Tuas Power, which has net debts of $71 million, reported revenues of $2.27 billion and Ebitda (earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation) of $331 million. Net profit before tax rose to $218.7 million from $130 million the year before, and it had a healthy ROE (return on equity) of 16.5 per cent.
Senoko, with a combined installed capacity of 3,300 MW, is the country’s largest power generator, providing 30 per cent of its needs. For the financial year ended March 31, 2008, it reported revenues of $2.49 billion, an EBITDA of $245 million and net income of $130 million.
Starting out in 1971 and with an installed capacity of 3,100 MW, Power Seraya has an even better story to tell. For the year ended March 31, 2008, it posted revenues of $2.8 billion, after-tax net profits of $218 million, which was 30 per cent higher than the previous year’s $168 million, and an ROE of 19 per cent. It also reported an economic value added of $103 million and had compounded annual growth rate of 20 per cent over the last five years.
Perhaps the Government feels that the future of our electricity producers is dim and therefore hiving them off to foreigners at a good profit now would protect Singaporeans from any future downside.
Others suggest that selling off the power providers is a way out for the Government from having to explain to the public high tariffs, like at present when fuel is so expensive. It would be harder also for the Government than the private sector to explain away profits from the sale of a necessity.
But why did the Government decide not to take the three companies public by issuing shares that the man in the street could have subscribed to? Or insist on buyers issuing a portion of the companies to the investing public after a certain number of years?
Perhaps it’s not too late to do a public offering of PowerSeraya?
Straits Times 15 Sep 08;
THE world's first-ever green business trust, comprising solely of assets in the environmental management business, will be listed on the local stock exchange by the middle of next year.
In a statement yesterday, Keppel Corporation said that the trust will be established by its wholly owned subsidiary Keppel Integrated Engineering (KIE). It will be managed by KIE's subsidiary Keppel Infrastructure Fund Management.
One of the trust's first assets will be the Senoko Incineration Plant, which the Government has decided will be divested into KIE's trust for an indicative price of $462 million.
The plant currently treats 2,100 tonnes of waste per day to produce 34 megawatts of environmentally friendly 'green' electrical energy.
The Government announced in January that it was considering selling the Senoko plant either through a newly listed infrastructure business trust or to an existing listed trust.
It said the move was aimed at encouraging competition and improving efficiency in the waste management sector through greater private sector involvement, as well as creating investment opportunities for the public to invest in the infrastructure sector.
Singapore currently has four incineration plants that treat waste to produce electricity.
Keppel added that a fifth waste-to-energy plant its subsidiary is currently building in Tuas and Asia's largest operational Newater plant at Ulu Pandan will also be considered for injection into the trust.
Both plants are built under the private-public partnership initiative and will be owned and operated by Keppel for 25 years and 20 years respectively.
Keppel said yesterday that more details of the trust's IPO and listing on the exchange will be announced in due course.
'We believe this green business trust will offer eco-friendly investors the opportunity to participate in green projects, while at the same time enjoy stable and sustainable returns,' said KIE's chief executive Chua Chee Wui.
Senoko waste plant to be sold to Keppel unit KIE
It'll be injected into infrastructure trust that may include two more plants
Chew Xiang, Business Times 15 Sep 08;
THE Senoko Incineration Plant will be sold to a unit of Keppel Corp for eventual public listing, the Singapore government announced yesterday.
The indicative price is $462 million but the final price will be determined once the plant is listed, likely by mid-2009, according to a joint statement from the Finance and Environment and Water Resources Ministries and the Monetary Authority of Singapore.
Keppel Integrated Engineering (KIE), the environmental technology and engineering unit of Keppel Corp, was selected for the tender out of five bids received. A KIE unit, Keppel Seghers Engineering Singapore, will operate and maintain the plant under a long-term contract from the government.
KIE will inject the Senoko plant into a newly set-up infrastructure trust, which will subsequently be listed on the Singapore Exchange. KIE will act as sponsor and remain an investor in the trust, according to a statement from Keppel Corp, which also said that a waste-to-energy plant at Tuas being built, as well as a NEWater plant at Ulu Pandan, may also be injected into the trust in future.
Both plants are being built under public-private partnership initiatives and will be owned and operated by Keppel for 25 and 20 years respectively.
KIE chief executive officer Chua Chee Wui said: 'KIE intends to establish the trust as a listed green business trust, which will be the first of its kind in the world. It will have a global portfolio comprising primarily environmental management assets.'
The Senoko Incineration Plant, built in 1992, treats 2,100 tonnes of waste a day to produce 34 megawatts of electrical energy. It is one of four waste-to-energy incineration plants in Singapore, where all incinerable refuse is burnt.
According to its joint statement, this is the first time that a divestment exercise by the Singapore government has stipulated that the purchaser be an infrastructure business trust. 'This divestment exercise is expected to further improve efficiency in the waste management sector through greater private sector involvement. It also represents a new alternative mode that the government may choose for the divestment of its assets,' said the statement.
The government had issued a request for proposals in January this year and said then that the project was to improve efficiency through private sector involvement, as well as to allow the public to invest in the infrastructure sector.
Keppel said the tender award will have no material impact on its net tangible assets and earnings per share for the year ending Dec 31, 2008.
Keppel's proposal for divestment of Senoko Incineration Plant selected
Imelda Saad/S Ramesh, Channel NewsAsia 14 Sep 08;
SINGAPORE: Operations at the Senoko Incineration Plant are to be divested. For this, the government has selected the proposal from Keppel Integrated Engineering and Keppel Infrastructure Fund Management Private Limited.
The tender is worth an estimated price of S$462 million.
A joint statement from the Finance and Environment & Water Resources Ministries and the Monetary Authority of Singapore said the final price will be determined at the completion of the divestment, expected by the middle next year.
The Senoko Incineration Plant is one of four waste-to-energy incineration plants in Singapore.
It currently treats 2,100 tonnes of waste per day to produce 34 megawatts of green electrical energy.
The government issued a request for proposal in January this year to divest the Senoko plant.
The aim is improve efficiency in the waste management sector through greater private sector involvement and create opportunities for the public to invest in the infrastructure sector. A total of five bids was received for the project.
Under the new entity, the Singapore government will procure incineration services from the infrastructure trust, with operations conducted by Keppel Seghers Engineering - the environmental engineering arm of Keppel Integrated Engineering.
Keppel said it will inject the plant into a green business trust and list it, making it the first such listing in the world.
Chua Chee Wui, CEO, Keppel Integrated Engineering, said: "It will have a global portfolio comprising primarily environmental management assets.
"We believe this green business trust will offer eco-friendly investors the opportunity to participate in green projects, while at the same time enjoy stable and sustainable returns." - CNA/vm/ms
Kicking our oil addiction & using alternative power will spur growth
Zhen Ming, The New Paper 15 Sep 08;
SOMETIME in the not-too-distant future, petrol at the pump could cost Americans a whopping US$40 a gallon (roughly, $15 a litre) - 10 times what it is today.
But that's not my real concern. What's troubling me is the imminent threat of global Armageddon.
You see, the Western Coalition (the US and Europe) are at war. Not with each other, mind you, but with the so-called Red Star Alliance (Russia and China).
Singapore and the rest of the world, meanwhile, can only watch.
This time, though, the two warring sides are not fighting over tiny Georgia - that trans-continental country in the Caucasus.
This time, the stakes are much higher as the two sides square off over the world's last oil reserves - in a country called Turkmenistan, bordered by Afghanistan and Iran, located somewhere in Central Asia.
Amid hunger, water scarcity and power outages in this oil-rich desert country, soldiers from both sides descend upon bombed-out cities and abandoned villages to fight it out.
Thankfully, this 'dystopian' vision, set in the year 2024, is only speculative fiction.
It is presented in Frontlines: Fuel of War - a new video game, released earlier this year, inspired in part by contemporary fears about war over oil.
Before you say 'nah', consider what Mr Luis Cataldi, one of the game's developers, has to say: 'It's a global issue that everyone's very much aware of, but it's also fascinating.'
Fast forward to the year 2050 and what we will have is a more plausible, but truly scary, scenario in which the world will have used up its last drop of oil.
You see, as at the end of last year, the world was still sitting pretty atop a huge mountain of 1.3 trillion barrels of oil in proved reserves.
But the world has also been guzzling this oil at a breakneck speed of about 83.6 million barrels a day, which translates into some 30.5 billion barrels a year.
Assuming the world hasn't found new oil since 2007, and assuming also the world will stick to its current pattern of oil consumption, then what we'll see is a world that will run out of oil on Thursday, 21 July 2050 - less than 42 years away.
It's a doomsday date I don't wish to keep - one that's only as good as whether the world is able to find new oil, and whether it will also cut back. But all these moves will only delay, but not prevent, the inevitable.
And just in case you think I'm being a teeth-gnashing pessimist - that our way of life could disappear 42 years from now - wait till you hear what one Big Oil company itself has to say about this problem.
In a recent advertisement, Chevron made this telling point: 'It took us 125 years to use the first trillion barrels of oil. We'll use the next trillion in 30.'
Thankfully, the world is determined to kick its oil addiction and to go green.
Black gold has been good, but green gold is even better. Here's why.
Every nation that has taken serious steps to adopt 'a greener energy future' has reaped economic growth.
Take Sweden, which announced in 2006 the phase-out of all fossil fuels (and nuclear energy) by 2020. Thousands of entrepreneurs there have rushed to develop new ways of generating energy from wind, the sun and the tides, from wood chips, agricultural waste and garbage.
Rich returns
And guess what? Sweden is now the world's eighth most-affluent nation (on a per capita GDP basis).
The same goes for Iceland. It was once 80 per cent dependent on imported coal and oil in the 1970s and was among the poorest economies in Europe.
Today, Iceland is 100 per cent energy independent, and according to the International Monetary Fund, it is now the world's fourth-richest nation.
And did you know that Brazil's recent move to 'de-carbonise' its transport system has resulted in the most robust economic expansion in its history?
But how about the US - the world's most profligate user of energy?
As I see it, the US could soon lead the way by developing more efficient vehicles and by expanding carbon-free energy sources like wind and solar power.
Asserts Robert F Kennedy Jr, a senior attorney for America's Natural Resources Defense Council:
'The US has far greater domestic energy resources than Iceland or Sweden. We sit atop the second-largest geothermal resources in the world. The American Midwest is the Saudi Arabia of wind.
'Solar installations across just 19 per cent of the most barren desert land in the South-west could supply nearly all of our nation's electricity needs even if every American owned an electric car.'
By kicking its oil addiction, America will again increase its national wealth. Everyone else will then profit from this green gold rush.
Concurs Timothy Lutts, president of Cabot Heritage Corp: 'Today, though it's not widely acknowledged yet, what's being destroyed is our petroleum-based economy. That it's an entrenched part of our global economy is obvious. But it's been entrenched for less than a century - oil replaced coal, remember - and it's time for something better.'
As I see it, expect the providers of this 'something better' - clean green energy - to thrive beyond your wildest dream. Expect also individuals, companies and institutions with stakes in the old petroleum economy to fight back against this inevitable transition.
It is something unfortunate. But it is also something unavoidable.
# Zhen Ming, a Harvard-trained economist based in Singapore, is a freelance contributor.
Jessica Cheam, Straits Times 15 Sep 08;
SOME 14 years ago - long before 'sustainability' became a buzz-word in the corporate world - one entrepreneur had an epiphany which he described as a 'spear in the chest'.
He decided that his fossil fuel-intensive business will become the world's greenest company. He was told by his peers then that he was 'crazy and had 'gone round the bend'.
But today, Mr Ray Anderson's firm Interface Inc has silenced its sceptics.
The Atlanta-based company, one of the world's largest carpet manufacturers, was listed as world No. 1 for corporate sustainability by polling firm GlobeScan in 2006. Interface also generates annual revenues of US$1 billion (S$1.4 billion), thanks to its green business model, said Mr Anderson.
By pumping money into research and development, Interface pioneered technologies that enabled it to recycle material and manufacture carpets efficiently. In that period, it has avoided cumulative waste costs amounting to some US$353 million.
And from 1996, its greenhouse gas emissions went down a staggering 82 per cent while total energy intensity fell 45 per cent. All the while, total global sales of Interface's products jumped 49 per cent.
For his drive and vision, Mr Anderson was voted as one of Time Magazine's Heroes of the Environment last year. He shared his experience with local business leaders last Monday at an event by Singapore's American Chamber of Commerce.
The firm has had a Singapore office for 30 years, and its customers here include HSBC Bank and and Singapore Management University.
'In the 21st century, the most resource-efficient firms will win,' he told a 190-strong audience.
He sticks by the philosophy of 'doing well by doing good' - Interface's success was built on its sustainability journey, he said.
The Nasdaq-listed firm has a target which he calls 'Mission Zero' - to have a zero carbon footprint by 2020. He said Interface is 'more than halfway there now'.
Mr Anderson spoke of how his life changed when he was given a copy of US environmentalist and author's Paul Hawken's Ecology of Commerce.
'Suddenly, I began realising what we were doing to the earth,' he said. The book talked about the 'death of birth' - how species were becoming extinct, never to be born again. And that was when he decided to revolutionise his fossil fuel-reliant carpet business.
Mr Anderson instructed his managers to find out what impact Interface's business had on the environment.
'What I saw made me want to throw up,' he said. And that was the beginning of his climb on 'Mount Sustainability' as he calls it.
Interface started revamping its operations by eliminating waste, enhancing energy efficiency and offsetting transport emissions.
It also began tracking energy and water intake, waste streams, greenhouse gas emissions and raw materials streams, to evaluate its progress towards sustainability.
Today, up to 25 per cent of raw materials used is recycled. Last year, Interface sold a record 22 million sq m of third-party verified 'climate neutral' carpet.
The carpet was made climate neutral through the purchase of 390,000 tonnes of verified carbon credits to offset the entire life cycle of the products sold. It also offsets its land and air transport costs by planting trees and using carbon credits. His advice to firms in Singapore: The first step is find out what impact your business has on the environment.
'Then try to minimise this. You'll find that costs of your business will go down.'
He draws the line, however, at sharing his technology with competitors.
'Our sustainability is our advantage... If we can do it, anybody can. And if anybody can, then everybody can.'
Lewis Smith, The Times 15 Sep 08;
The rasping summer sound of grasshoppers chirping in fields and meadows is to be used to help to track climate changes.
Grasshoppers, along with bush crickets, have been identified as the ideal insects for a public monitoring system. There is a now a scheme to record sightings of all 27 native species of grasshoppers and crickets in Britain based on the system that enabled scientists to follow the spread of harlequin ladybirds.
The harlequin, an invasive species that competes with and often eats native ladybirds, arrived from the Continent in 2004 and has spread rapidly.
The public reporting system that was introduced to monitor the ladybird is regarded by researchers as an outstanding success and they now intend to use it to find out how climate change is affecting other insects.
Climate change is driving insects and other creatures to find new places to live as temperatures rise too high for their comfort or make it possible for them to move into a previously unfavoured area. Grasshoppers and crickets are regarded as ideal for the project because they are easily picked out by the public from the huge array of other insects and are among the “most charismatic” of the nation’s creepy-crawlies.
Researchers are convinced that once members of the public “get their eye in” they will be able to spot all 27 species, along with a handful of foreign visitors.
Even if telling the difference between a wart-biter bush cricket and the large marsh grasshopper proves too much to manage on a stroll in the countryside, enthusiasts taking part can send photographs for experts to identify.
Butterflies have until now been used as the primary insect indicators of climate change in Britain because they are among the most visible and well-known.
Grasshoppers and crickets are regarded as valuable indicators of climate change because in many ways they are more sensitive to it than other insects. Researchers hope to harness public enthusiasm for them to provide a new source of data.
More than 60,000 records of ladybirds were generated by the Harlequin Ladybird Survey, 20,000 of the invasive species and a further 40,000 of native ladybirds.
Helen Roy, of the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, said of the harlequin reporting scheme: “It’s been such a great way to get people involved and we got high-quality data.
“We now want to expand the system and we’ve chosen grasshoppers and crickets because they are charismatic and they are showing range expansion already. We want to use them in the same way the butterflies have been used to show expansion.”
Long-winged coneheads, a type of cricket species, have been expanding into new territories as temperatures have risen under climate change. Until the 1980s they were confined to the South Coast, but they can now be found north of Leicester.
Similarly Roesel’s bush cricket was largely restricted to the Thames and Solent Estuaries in the mid-20th century, but is now seen across Britain.
Other species may be declining and the project should also help to identify where a species is in trouble. The common grasshopper is among those giving concern and it is thought that higher temperatures are a factor.
Peter Sutton, a science teacher and an authority on grasshoppers and crickets, has been closely involved in the scheme, which is expected to begin in November.
“These insects are the foremost indicators of climate change and are responding dramatically to global warming,” he said.
“Temperature increases have allowed them to expand their habitat.”
Innovations in designing green chemicals are emerging in nearly every U.S. industry, from plastics and pesticides to toys and nail polish.
Marla Cone, Los Angeles Times 14 Sep 08;
First of two parts
At first, the experimental shampoo looked like a putrid salad dressing. Its oil and its water just couldn't get along. They separated in the bottle and, over time, the shampoo took on an ugly brown hue.
The team at Avalon Organics, based in Petaluma, was trying to make a line of hair, skin and bath products without toxic chemicals, using ingredients derived from plants, such as lavender and coconut.
"It was a disaster," said Morris Shriftman, the company's vice president at the time. "We thought we had failed."
In any recipe, whether for cake or shower gel, swapping out one ingredient for another can result in a complete flop. But the chemists working for Avalon Organics refused to give up. After years of tweaking recipes, at a cost exceeding $1 million, the company reinvented more than 150 products and came to lead a growing movement dubbed "consciousness in cosmetics."
"We accepted this stuff blindly for so long. Now we're asking questions, seeking information. The awareness that we're living in a chemical environment is finally taking hold," Shriftman said.
Innovations in designing green chemicals are emerging in nearly every U.S. industry, from plastics and pesticides to toys and nail polish. Some manufacturers of cosmetics, household cleaners and other consumer products are leading the charge, while others are lagging behind.
For decades, many manufacturers used the most powerful weapons in their chemical arsenals, with scant attention to where they wound up or what they might have been doing to people or the planet.
Now, in a fresh take on the pre-World War II slogan, "Better Living Through Chemistry," small chemical companies and giant corporations, including BASF and Rohm and Haas, are implementing the tenets of green chemistry, creating safer substances that won't seep into our bloodstream, endanger wildlife or pollute resources.
Once viewed as part of a fringe lifestyle, rooted in the hippie movement, natural and nontoxic are going mainstream. Driven by regulations, consumer demand, an eco-friendly business philosophy and fear of future lawsuits, large corporations, retailers and manufacturers are eliminating some chemicals, pulling products off shelves and redesigning others. The names are familiar: Wal-Mart, the Walt Disney Co., Ikea, Home Depot, Nalgene, Kaiser Permanente, Baxter HealthCare, Gerber, Clorox and Origins.
Yale University chemistry professor Paul Anastas, known as the father of green chemistry, said the movement is "not simply choosing the next, less-bad thing off the shelf. It's about designing something that is genuinely good.
"Green chemistry is not a theory," he said. "It's being demonstrated by companies over and over again."
With a little ingenuity, every substance in the world "can be reinvented and made safe," said John Warner, former director of University of Massachusetts' green chemistry doctorate program and now president of a research company creating sustainable chemicals.
But the greening of chemistry is a slow shift, not a revolution. Most chemists lack basic training in understanding environmental hazards and seeking safer solutions, and many businesses resist changing familiar chemicals and manufacturing techniques.
Even companies like Avalon Organics are learning that manufacturing a shampoo or shower gel without toxic substances isn't easy. Synthetic chemicals called phthalates add fragrance, parabens kill germs, and sulfuric acid and petrochemicals create a thick lather. Such substances have long been considered key ingredients in cosmetics and bath products. But they have been linked with cancer, skewed hormones and other threats to people and the environment.
"We heard from everyone that what we were doing was risky, that it was unnecessary, that all the major cosmetics companies use these chemicals so they couldn't be dangerous," Avalon's Shriftman said. "But we decided to subscribe to the precautionary principle. We wanted to do the right thing. We rebuilt our products from scratch. It took a long time. It took a lot of experimentation. And it took a lot of money."
Though toilet bowl cleaners and body lotions may not save the planet, they are the first step toward weaning its human inhabitants from their toxic chemical dependency.
"We believe that the small act of scouring the sink," said Shaklee Corp. Chief Executive Roger Barnett, "can be part of the giant act of changing the world."
Early exposure
Chemical contamination starts in the womb. Even before a baby takes a breath, her body contains chemicals passed on by her mother.
Tests of umbilical cords show that a newborn's body contains nearly 300 compounds -- among them mercury from fish, flame retardants from household dust, pesticides from backyards, hydrocarbons from fossil fuels.
Virtually everything we buy, breathe, drink and eat contains traces of toxic substances. The names are confusing; the list, mind-boggling: Bisphenol A in plastic baby bottles and food cans. Phthalates in vinyl toys. Polybrominated flame retardants in furniture cushions. Formaldehyde in kitchen cabinets. Radon in granite countertops. Lead in lipstick. 1,4-Dioxane in shampoo. Volatile organic compounds in hair spray.
Every day, about half a dozen chemicals are added to the estimated 83,000 already in commerce. In the United States alone, about 42 billion pounds of chemicals are produced or imported daily. Although California has no major chemical manufacturing plants, it is a large user: About 644 million pounds are sold daily in the state, according to a University of California report on green chemistry published in January.
Many chemicals are probably benign, but basic health and safety data are lacking for about 80%. Some, such as chlorine gas, are so highly poisonous that a minuscule amount can kill. Others can raise the risk of cancer and other diseases. Animal tests show that some suppress the immune system, obstruct brain development, deplete testosterone, mutate cells, turn genes on and off or alter reproductive organs.
Since the 1960s, when the pesticide DDT nearly wiped out the bald eagle, public policy has dealt with the risks on a chemical-by-chemical basis: Ban a few, restrict others and clean up the mess left behind.
Meanwhile, nearly half of the nation's waterways are classified as impaired by pollutants, the air of most cities is shrouded with soot and smog, and the multibillion-dollar bill to clean up the Superfund list of hazardous waste sites keeps growing. Chemicals have moved pole-to-pole via oceans and winds, turning animals and humans around the globe into unwitting lab rats.
Scientists and regulators continually try to figure out whether various chemicals pose a threat, and to what degree, yet they rarely come up with definitive answers. Even when a proven hazard is banned, it can take decades, perhaps centuries, for it to dissipate. Sometimes, its replacement is just as risky.
"California's hazardous waste sites are still growing. And they're still leaking," said Maureen Gorsen, who directs the state Department of Toxic Substances Control, which is spearheading a Green Chemistry Initiative launched by Gov. Schwarzenegger. "We need a massive chemical shift. We need to move to the beginning, to the design part, what goes into the products we use rather than what comes out the end."
A simple formula
The laboratory inside Shaklee's corporate headquarters in Pleasanton, Calif., looks like any other. But it's missing a lot: chlorine, formaldehyde, glycol ethers, solvents.
Wearing a white lab coat, senior scientist Arshad Malik starts with a beaker of water. He mixes in a vegetable-based thickener, then pours in a blend of coconut oil and sugar extracted from corn. Finally, he adds a drop of a preservative.
Malik is demonstrating the deceptively simple formula for Shaklee Corp.'s household cleaner, the workhorse of its "Get Clean" line.
Gone are the petrochemicals and formaldehyde. Although cheap and effective, they emit toxic vapors.
When Shaklee began searching for a green surfactant, the ingredient that dissolves dirt and grease, no chemical company seemed interested in inventing one made from vegetables. Not until Shaklee called Germany and talked to chemists at Cognis, a specialty manufacturer.
The result: a biodegradable mix of coconut oil and sugar.
Josef Koester, marketing director for Cognis' Care Chemicals North America, said his company created the coconut-and-corn surfactant by incorporating a simple concept: "Using less chemistry."
Over the past few years, this less-is-more approach has become big business for companies going green. Even Clorox, which got its name from chlorine, launched Green Works, a nontoxic line of cleaners, this year.
Two of the biggest innovators in household products are California companies: Shaklee, which is sold person-to-person, and San Francisco-based Method Products, which sells through Target, Costco and other large retailers.
"What is driving this market now is concern over bioaccumulation of chemicals in the body," said Jim Greene, Shaklee's vice president of product development.
"The public is now reading labels and they're very concerned about what they're putting not only in the environment, but onto their skin and into their bodies."
Some green chemistry products are trying to grab a market share from the big brand names by offering something beyond environmentally friendly ingredients. Method's kitchen and bathroom cleaners, which cost roughly 10% more than traditional ones, are scented with lavender and other essential oils and packaged in hip, colorful containers.
"If it needs to be ugly to be green, it won't ever be mainstream," said Adam Lowry, a Stanford University chemical engineering graduate and co-founder of Method. "We show consumers that buying green is not only more healthful but also more pleasurable, and it's almost cost-neutral."
Sales at Method, one of the fastest-growing private companies in 2006, have reached $77 million a year. Avalon Organics' market also soared; it was sold last year for $120 million to Hain Celestial, known for producing organic foods.
"We've built in green chemistry from the very beginning. It was at the core of our business philosophy," Lowry said. "The companies that don't do it will become the dinosaurs."
Formaldehyde-free
Johns manville co. may have learned the hard way. It was bankrupted by one of the deadliest and most expensive toxic episodes in history: asbestos.
The building materials company, now under new ownership, wanted its new fiberglass insulation to be as environmentally safe as possible. So it turned to Rohm and Haas, a $9-billion-a-year chemical company that invented a new glue with no formaldehyde, a carcinogen that has been the binder of choice for fiberglass.
Johns Manville is now the only manufacturer offering a complete line of formaldehyde-free insulation, and because its factories emit no formaldehyde, it is the only one exempt from federal hazardous air pollutant standards.
The new adhesives cost more per pound. But Mike Lawrence, Johns Manville's vice president and general manager for insulations systems, said the manufacturing process was tightened to bring costs in line. He said their products are priced in the same range as competitors' and meet the same industry standards.
"It was the right thing to do for our employees, our customers, for our shareholders," Lawrence said.
Peggy Jenkins, the California Air Resources Board's indoor air quality specialist, advises consumers to buy formaldehyde-free insulation to reduce their exposure to the carcinogen.
Still, such products comprise only about 20% of the insulation market. Owens Corning, the largest manufacturer, uses formaldehyde, saying there is no evidence that trace amounts pose a health threat.
Colin Gouveia, a global marketing director at Rohm and Haas, said most consumers are unaware that building materials contain formaldehyde.
"Sometimes green products," he said, "need a little kick from a regulation to overcome the barrier to change."
That is what stoked the market for another green chemistry product, an industrial paint. In 2006, the South Coast Air Quality Management District set limits on smog-causing petroleum-based solvents in industrial coatings used in the Los Angeles region.
Caltrans had to find new paint for the state's 850 steel bridges that was not only low-polluting, but could withstand the elements. Rohm and Haas' biggest challenge was the perception that a water-based paint couldn't be durable.
Barry Marcks, Caltrans' associate chemical testing engineer, said the new low-emission paint has been used for two years on the state's bridges -- 86 million square feet of surface area. It's as rust-resistant as the old paints, and has an added benefit: It retains its glossy colors better, he said.
The cost per gallon is in the same range, but the state saves on disposal and cleanup. Caltrans workers like it too.
"Now the workers don't have to be around all those high-solvent-borne paints. The waterborne ones are a lot less toxic," Marcks said.
Making sacrifices
Even green chemistry products have shades of brown.
No regulations or industry standards govern use of the words "natural" or "organic" in cleaning products, cosmetics or bath products. Many contain traces of toxic substances.
The Shaklee cleaner contains a small amount of a germ-killing biocide used as a preservative. Avalon got rid of parabens but uses glycol ethers as preservatives.
Sometimes consumers have to make sacrifices in the pursuit of green. Method and Shaklee products, for example, are not disinfectants, because antibacterial substances are toxic and not naturally derived.
The greenest products are 100% vegetable, made entirely of renewable, natural feedstocks that are not chemically modified. Less green are those that include minerals or inorganic materials.
Shaklee Corp.'s dish-washing detergent, for example, contains sodium carbonate. The least green of the products use petrochemicals or animal substances.
"You can always say, I can do this greener," said Koester, Cognis' marketing director. "But you don't want to go back to washing your hair with soap, do you? That would be the consequence of going too green."
But more and more, the world's largest chemical companies are looking for substitutes for some of the old petrochemicals that made them global powerhouses.
BASF, which has $90 billion in annual sales, invented a plasticizer with no phthalates, which are estrogen-mimicking compounds used to make vinyl. It is marketed in China, where 80% of toys are produced.
DuPont is using cornstarch as a key building block to make polyester. Dow Chemical Co. is turning soybeans into a compound for polyurethane foam and building a plant in Brazil that will use sugar cane to make plastic for use in grocery bags and other products.
Green chemistry is "not just a niche anymore," said Neil Hawkins, Dow's vice president of sustainability.
"When you have retailers like Wal-Mart setting environmental goals," he said, "it creates a demand and a ripple effect for new, innovative products. I see some real changes right now, driven by the market."
Posts
visitors since Nov 07