I REFER to last Friday's report, 'Singapore rejects emission cuts'.
Even if it is economically unfeasible to cut emissions as a small country, there is still plenty residents can do to protect the environment. I have a few suggestions:
# Eat less. Singaporeans love to eat, but do we need to eat as much as we eat now and also waste a lot of food?
# Drive less. To drive less is to be stuck less in traffic jams. This means tremendous savings in terms of fuel costs, Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) charges and unproductive hours spent in cars. Ultimately, this has the beneficial effect of cutting down on aggregate emissions too.
# Recycle more. Singapore does not yet have a recycling facility for home appliances, or a facility for battery disposal, though we are a nation of gadget lovers.
Toxicity from disposed batteries and appliances ultimately leaks into groundwater, which threatens not only the environment as a whole, but also future generations of this country.
# Use less air-conditioning. This is not only wallet-friendly but also cuts down on aggregate emissions when we collectively use less electricity.
Most of these suggestions are within the discretion of each resident. It is true that as Singapore is a small country, the consequences of environmental practices are likely negligible relative to the scale of global pollution today. But let us do our part.
Jeffrey Chan
Act now to counter looming threat
Straits Times Forum 2 Nov 09;
I REFER to Dr Andy Ho's commentary last Friday, 'Reasons for Singapore to be cool on global warming'.
Dr Ho could not be more wrong.
He calls into question the 2007 statement by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), by saying it had the support of 2,500 scientists, but noting that this number 'actually includes those who disagree with parts of it but had no say in the final text'.
The IPCC statement is very much a lowest common denominator document; most of the climate scientists who disagree with parts of it but who signed it actually consider that the threat facing humanity is worse than what the IPCC report says, not milder.
Dr Ho cites the petition by 9,029 scientists who say that global warming is not caused by human activities, but does not point out that these are scientists of all descriptions, few of whom have any background in climate studies.
There are people who cling to the arguments that global warming is not happening, or that it is not caused by human activity, but then there are also people who still cling to the idea that there is no conclusive scientific evidence that smoking increases the risk of cancer.
There is much in science that is not 100 per cent certain and powerful vested interests will make the most of that, but when evidence stacks up in support of a particular proposition, it makes sense to sit up and take notice. It also makes sense to look where the weight of expert research and opinion lies.
What will happen when rising sea levels and more violent storms devastate coastal areas where hundreds of millions of people live, as is already happening in Bangladesh and Egypt?
Come to that, how will Singaporeans themselves feel about having to pay for sea walls to protect reclaimed land in the future as protection from tidal surges, or to cope with higher daily temperatures?
Every effort must be made to counter this threat.
John Richard Gee
Singapore not part of developing world - it's a developed nation
Straits Times Forum 2 Nov 09;
I REFER to Dr Andy Ho's commentary last Friday, 'Reasons for Singapore to be cool on global warming".
The main point of the commentary seems to be that the science of climate change is not exact enough to guide policies conclusively. However, surprisingly, the rest is dedicated to a proposal to formulate policies based on exactly the type of reasoning the commentary warns against: that is, drawing bold political conclusions from climate science.
Policymakers are well aware of the uncertainties inherent in climate science, yet decide to err on the side of caution.
However, what I found surprising in the commentary was the confident claim that Singapore is not a developed country, but 'still part of the developing world'.
This is in direct contradiction to what I have learnt through the media.
As a matter of fact, the FTSE Group classifies Singapore as a developed country. This classification is designed to help decision-making by investors.
Panagiotis Karras
Legal action needed to tackle haze
Letter from Tong Jee Cheng
Today Online 1 Nov 09;
For many years our Asean government representatives have been meeting to discuss on the haze issue cause by forest fires in Indonesia. Yet every year, we still have the haze 'season'.
It has been reported again that members of Asean have agreed to hold a haze prevention forum annually to address the problem of land and forest fires. What is 'new' this time is that Singapore introduced the forum this year, to bring together heads of local governments and international non-government organizations to share best practices in preventing the haze.
Suffering citizens of Asean countries need strong legal action against erring the country and/or plantation owners, not best practices. What we want is concrete action and not just talk year after year. The governments are aware of the enormous health and economic impact of the haze and yet they let their citizens endure the haze for years.
To read that Singapore is taking the lead in the matter is an irony. It has been reported that our government will not be one of the signatories to reduce global carbon emission. One of the reasons given is that the scientific evidence of global warming due to carbon emission is not conclusive.
Is not the annual haze in Singapore evident of carbon emission causing global warming ? The temperature rises to uncomfortable levels every year during the haze season. We experience it physically. We do not need rocket science to prove it.
Climate change - what we eat more crucial than quantity
Straits Times Forum 3 Nov 09;
I REFER to Mr Jeffrey Chan's letter yesterday, 'Climate change: What Singaporeans can do'.
He suggests eating less food, and that may be a good idea for some of us. However, more important than how much we eat is what we eat. In particular, we need to reduce our meat consumption.
Last month, Lord Stern, lead author of the British government's Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, one of the most comprehensive on the subject, stated: 'Meat is a wasteful use of water and creates a lot of greenhouse gases. It puts enormous pressure on the world's resources. A vegetarian diet is better.'
Lord Stern, a former World Bank chief economist, likened meat eating to drink driving and forecast that as we learn about the environmental harm done by meat production, meat eating will become less socially acceptable.
The link between meat and global warming involves two overlapping factors. First, eating meat is inefficient because to produce just 1kg of meat, we must feed many kilos of plant food to the animals we later eat. This means more forests cut down to grow feed for these animals rather than food for humans. Yes, we need these forests to take in carbon dioxide.
The second meat-climate change link involves the gases released by the animals we eat as part of their digestive processes and from their manure. In particular, the gases methane and nitrous oxide contain much greater climate change power than carbon dioxide.
Fortunately, in Singapore, we have access to a wide range of meatless foods at restaurants, food centres and markets. Furthermore, many non-vegetarian restaurants and stalls are happy to prepare meatless dishes on request. Thus, every day, three times a day, we can each do our bit to reverse climate change.
Dr George Jacobs
President, Vegetarian Society (Singapore)
Related blog posts
- Attempt to Manipulate and Confuse Public Thinking on Climate Change from AsiaIsGreen
- Andy Ho shares his greater knowledge on climate change from Green Drinks Singapore