Number of litter bugs in Singapore up nine-fold in past two years

Number of litter bugs issued CWO up nine-fold in past two years
Pearl Forss/Ng Lian Cheong, Channel NewsAsia 14 Dec 08;

SINGAPORE: The number of litterbugs caught has been on the rise over the last two years. As of end November, over 1,050 offenders have been issued with Corrective Work Orders (CWO) so far this year.

If not for Sunday morning's downpour, littering offenders would've had to serve out their Corrective Work Orders amid the full glare of the media. They'd all been caught littering more than once.

But since the rain didn't stop, their CWO session had to be postponed.

Since 2006, the number of litterbugs caught has gone up significantly.

In the first 11 months of this year alone, 30,200 tickets for littering were issued.

This is in part due to stepped-up enforcement by the National Environment Agency.

In the last two years, it's increased time spent on enforcement by 3.5 times to 322 man hours per day.

Consequently, the number of CWOs meted out over the same period has also gone up nine-fold to 1,052 as of last month.

In 2006, only 122 offenders were issued with CWOs.

Tai Ji Choong, head, Operations, Environmental Health Department, National Environment Agency, said: "CWO has up till now still been effective because the number of repeat offenders has remained low and fairly consistent over the years. In fact, for the last five years, repeat offenders have not exceeded three per cent."

Over 60 per cent of offenders are young people below the age of 30.

S$37 million of taxpayers’ money is spent each year cleaning the streets. - CNA/vm

Numbers that bug
Nine times more Corrective Work Orders dispensed than two years ago; NEA says scheme is effective

Zul Othman, Today Online 15 Dec 08;

TRIPLING its enforcement efforts to net litterbugs has paid off for the National Environment Agency (NEA): Already this year, 30,214 have been ticketed, a third more than those caught last year, and four times up from two years ago.

The culprits are mostly male, under 30 and usually smokers. They are, contrary to some assumptions, also mostly local — just 35.9 per cent of those caught were foreigners, as of August.

While nine times more Corrective Work Orders (CWOs) have been handed out this year than in 2006 — and twice more than last year — is this mode of punishing litterbugs proving effective?

This question comes at a time when the authorities are looking at the touted success of the 15-year-old CWO scheme as a model for alternative sentences to jail and a fine, for other minor offences.

The NEA believes it has proven most effective. “The number of repeat offenders have remained low and fairly consistent over the years,” said NEA head of operations Tai Ji Choong.

“In fact, over the last year, the number of repeat offenders has not exceeded 3 per cent.”

Under the law, those caught throwing cigarette butts and sweet wrappers are fined $200, but repeat offenders and those who throw more serious trash, such as plastic bags and food wrappers, are sent to court and may be sentenced to a CWO.

CWO exercises are held three or four times a year and require litterbugs to clock a number of hours to clean up public places. :In yesterday’s latest exercise, 155 litterbugs had been ordered to clean up the streets, but the downpour saw the event cancelled with many having to return another day.

Mr Mohd Hassim, 22, told Today the punishment was like community service. “It is my fault I am here, since this is the second time I was caught throwing my cigarette butt in town.”

Help for the enforcers?

Still, while offenders like him may now think twice before dropping their trash anywhere but the trash bins, some people think more is needed to curb the proliferation of litterbugs.

“Perhaps offences are up because people are unaware of the strict penalties. Also, it seems to me that no matter what you do, the number of offenders will always outnumber the NEA inspectors,” said Ms Trina Lim, a 29-year-old sales manager. “Perhaps another body, maybe town council officials, could help catch the litterbugs.”

In 2006, the NEA enhanced its enforcement efforts by dedicating 322 man-hours to catching litterbugs: 500 officers were empowered to take action against them, while another 50 were tasked to catch both litterbugs and those who flout the smoking ban.

Currently, the NEA says, some town councils have enacted their own by-laws to take action those who litter.

But Member of Parliament (MP) for Tanjong Pagar GRC Indranee Rajah believes that any suggestion for town council officials, for instance, to help enforce litter laws should be looked into “more carefully”.

“Town councils are basically a service agency,” she said. Hong Kah GRC MP Alvin Yeo agreed: “Grassroots leaders are members of public like you and me. They could help with counselling offenders, but it makes a lot of sense to leave the enforcing solely to the NEA.”

Rehabilitate and repay

It is ironic that a scheme perceived as a way to “shame” and deter litterbugs when it was launched in 1993, is today the potential model for sentences that would, instead, rehabilitate offenders without stigmatising them.

It was revealed last week that the Government is looking at communty-based options for minor offences. Under the proposed Criminal Procedure Code Bill, such sentences could be mandated in lieu of jail time, to cover a wider range of offences and types of community work to be performed by offenders, up to a cap of 40 hours.

Said Ms Indranee: “I would opt for work orders for non-serious offenders, like in minor vandalism cases, because it gives them a chance to give back to the community.”

Mr Aaron Wong is glad the courts are looking beyond the “blunt instrument” that is jail time. “I think it’s harsh to chuck people in jail if they’re caught stealing a handphone or for vandalism,” said the 26-year-old communications executive. “Working with the community could help set them straight.”

More ordered to pick up litter
About 1,000 litterbugs subject to Corrective Work Order this year
Kimberly Spykerman & Lim Wei Chean, Straits Times 15 Dec 08;

EIGHTY litterbugs took up brooms at four locations around Singapore yesterday and swept the streets as a penance for their anti-social behaviour.

The punishment was part of the 100th instalment of Corrective Work Order (CWO), which is meant to deter people from littering by making them pick up rubbish in public places.

Dr Teo Ho Pin, mayor of the North West district, said: 'It sends a strong message to everyone living in Singapore that littering is an anti-social act.'

Since it was implemented 15 years ago, more than 5,800 people have been made to pick up litter as punishment for their crime.

It is a weapon that has become increasingly popular in Singapore's long-running battle against litter.

This year, about 1,000 people have been subject to the order, a far cry from the roughly 120 in 2006, according to the National Environment Agency (NEA).

Of the more than 30,000 people issued littering tickets since August this year, about one-third were foreigners.

The agency said stepped-up checks have helped catch more litterbugs, particularly those in 'hotspots' like popular food belts, shopping areas and bus interchanges.

The agency has tripled the number of man hours per day dedicated to doing this.

A CWO is usually imposed only on repeat offenders and those who dispose of items, such as food wrappers, drink cans and plastic cups, which can lead to infestations that compromise public health.

Under the scheme, offenders can be made to spend up to 12 hours picking up rubbish. Each session is capped at three hours.

The agency said CWOs are an effective way of curbing a perennial problem.

Numbers from the last five years show that less than 3 per cent of litterbugs forced to pick up rubbish were likely to repeat the offence.

Studies carried out by the NEA have shown that the majority of the offenders are likely to be men under 30 who are smokers. Ms Ellen Lee, MP of Sembawang GRC, suggested the younger set could be prone to such behaviour because 'they have maids at home to take care of many things including tidying and cleaning up after them'.

Deputy chairman of the Government Parliamentary Committee (National Development and Environment) Lee Bee Wah, said that public education is the key to wiping out littering - not shaming offenders.

'I don't think the CWOs are very useful, she said. 'We should go (with the) softer approach of education.'

One repeat offender who wanted to be known only as Mr Wan, 22, received a three-hour CWO after he was caught stubbing out a cigarette on the street.

The 22-year-old said the penalty was not much of a deterrent, especially compared to a $200 fine he received for his first offence.

'I'll just do this and get it over and done with. It's not like the first time which really made me learn my lesson. I consciously kept a lookout for dustbins.'

Read more!

Seeds of hope: Freezing vaults guard Earth's flora

Gregory Katz, Associated Press Yahoo News 14 Dec 08;

ARDINGLY, England – The underground bunker can block nuclear fallout, withstand a direct hit by a jetliner, and is cooled to a deathly chill.

The ultramodern facility in the tranquil English countryside looks like a perfect lab for a James Bond villain, but it doesn't hide anything sinister. The only thing kept here are seeds, lots of them — more than a billion, in fact.

Scientists say this is the world's most diverse seed bank, but its keepers worry that the global financial crisis could cut its government and corporate funding and cause the seed gathering to wither at the end of next year, well short of its goal.

"This is the world's biodiversity hot spot," said Paul Smith, director of the Millennium Seed Bank Project, standing outside two room-size vaults filled with precious seeds which are kept at minus 4 degrees Fahrenheit to slow their metabolism.

"That's important for mankind. But if the funding situation doesn't improve, we'll have to stop collecting."

He has already seen a tightening of philanthropic budgets in recent months that is affecting the seed bank's future. "We have not raised the kind of money we had hoped to at this point," Smith said.

There are more than 1,000 seed banks — including a newly opened, unmanned "doomsday" facility in the Arctic wastes of Norway that will ultimately house more than 1 billion crop seeds. But the one at Wakehurst Place, about 30 miles south of London, says it's the only global facility of its kind, unique for its focus on wild species, not just crops.

It says it aims to store a quarter of the world's species by 2020, and could eventually house half of them. It currently has 25,000 species and 1.5 billion seeds.

The seed bank's scientists gauge the total number of plant species at 300,000, which represents a middle figure in the widely varying, constantly changing, global estimate.

It doesn't just take in seeds — it sends them out. Millennium Bank seeds are being used in Australia to figure out what plants can grow in salty reclaimed land, and in Pakistan and Egypt to find plants that can withstand drought and slow desert encroachment.

The bank is helping to restore tall prairie grass in the United States and a tropical forest in Madagascar.

Saving the world's seeds does not come cheap.

At the Millennium Seed Bank, it costs about $3,000 per species to ship in the seeds, meticulously clean them, X-ray them for insect damage and freeze them for possible future use as medicine, a commercial product, or a reviver of a plant that has gone extinct.

It is a global effort: The bank has more than 120 different partners in some 50 countries where seeds are collected and stored. In many cases, seeds are kept both in their native countries and here as a backup.

Some countries, Brazil for instance, are unwilling to send precious seeds overseas, so they are kept in at least two seed banks inside the country, their standards monitored by Millennium Seed Bank experts.

The project, under the Royal Botanical Gardens at Kew, started in 2000 with 72 million pounds, then about $110 million, in funding from Britain's national lottery and governmental, corporate and individual sponsors.

Smith said the seed bank needs to raise about 10 million pounds ($15 million) a year for the next decade.

The futuristic facility, with its low-slung steel and glass structure over the vaults, is seen by scientists as an insurance policy against nature and human folly. It is a quiet place, where young scientists in white smocks spend hours cleaning seeds by hand, using microscopes, scalpels, forceps, and tiny brushes. The largest is the double coconut seed, almost as big as two coconuts; smallest is the Venus looking glass — with more than a million seeds fitting into a small canister.

Before depositing the seeds in the vaults, lab workers don floor-length parkas.

Even then, the temperature is so low that bodies start losing core heat in 15 minutes. So elaborate safety systems are in place in case anyone is trapped in a vault; an AP photographer inadvertently tripped a series of ringing alarms when he left the vault while a worker remained inside.

Scientists call the Millennium effort invaluable as climate change accelerates.

"The potential value of this project is almost unfathomable," said David Astley, head of the Genetics Resources Unit at the University of Warwick in England, who corroborated the Millennium Projects claim to be the world's most diverse seed bank.

"If you look at the way the world is going, it's inevitable that genetic material will be lost," said Astley, who is not connected to the project. "The big fear is that, if global warming comes sooner rather than later, it may be too late to conserve the material."

Scientists here are also developing new ways to germinate endangered species, including some like the South African faucaria that are down to a single population of plants in the wild.

"We don't know that they are useful for anything," Smith said, "but we don't know that they aren't useful either."

The same could be said of the roughly 80 percent of species here that have not yet been screened for possible medical use.

"Twenty years ago we didn't know the rosy periwinkle from Madagascar would reduce childhood leukemia to the extent that it has," said Smith.

"So who knows what we have in the bank? Our worry is that we're going to lose those in the wild before we even have a chance. So putting them in the seed bank is the most logical first step."

Already, a handful of species collected here have vanished in the wild as habitat is destroyed. Scientists believe these could be reintroduced in the next few centuries. Some seeds, they believe, may last one thousand years under ideal conditions.

Researchers here have already been able to germinate seeds that are more than 200 years old, bringing to life a "pin cushion flower" — known as the leucospermum — from seeds dating back to 1803.

The seeds tell the story of lost empire — they were first collected by a Dutch merchant trading in South Africa, but he was intercepted on his return voyage by a British privateer because Britain was at war with the Dutch at the time.

The seeds were taken from the Dutchman, who was imprisoned in the Tower of London, and were eventually discovered in the National Archives and given to the seed bank.

Scientists expected germination attempts to fail, but were pleasantly surprised when they were able to grow the flowering plant at the Millennium Seed Bank, where it can sometimes be seen in the greenhouse.

They take this as a hopeful sign that other seeds can lay dormant for hundreds of years and be brought back to life.

Read more!

Malaysia ranks third in Asia for green projects

Business Times 15 Dec 08;

(BANGKOK) Malaysia ranks third in Asia with 145 projects worth US$274 million lined up this year, according to the year-end snapshot of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) of the Kyoto Protocol - the United Nations (UN) emission- reduction treaty.

The CDM projects running or in the pipeline in Malaysia represent 3.4 per cent of the global share, and showed a steady rise from just two projects in 2004 to seven in 2005, 23 in 2006 and 93 last year.

The UN Environment Programme (UNEP) said last Friday that more than 4,200 projects were up and running, or in various phases of the pipeline across the globe in 2008, with China, India, Brazil and Mexico continuing to grab the lion's share with a total of 3,218 projects.

China topped the chart with 1,557, or 36.7 per cent of the global share, followed by 1,135 for India. The countries with the least projects are Fiji, Laos and Papua New Guinea with just one apiece.

Wind and geothermal power projects alongside those promoting energy efficiency and even the preservation of onions are emerging across the globe, courtesy of the UN-brokered carbon markets.

Leading are medium and small-scale hydroelectric projects, followed by biomass energy, wind power and electricity from industrial waste heat, while the CDM is also now triggering interest in a wider range of renewable energy projects, including solar and geothermal power, and one 250 MW tidal project in South Korea.

One novel project is emerging from Niger where an estimated 60 per cent of the national onion crop can be lost, leading to methane emissions as the vegetables rot. The idea is to use solar dryers and other systems to preserve the onions so that they do not rot in storage or on the way to the market. -- Bernama

Read more!

After dangerous lull, war on climate change faces crunch year

Richard Ingham And Marlowe Hood Yahoo News 15 Dec 08;

POZNAN, Poland (AFP) – After a year in which it nearly lost its compass, the campaign against climate change heads into 2009 needing top-level political commitment, creative thinking and a deep well of money.

Next year holds a big dream: by its end, the world will have forged a treaty in Copenhagen to shrink global warming from mankind-threatening juggernaut to manageable problem.

Unprecedented in scale and complexity, this accord, due to take effect from 2012, will rein in the greenhouse gases that stoke global warming and throw a lifeline to poor countries exposed to mutated weather patterns.

But realising this vision will now require extraordinary effort.

Climate change became the buzzword of 2007, when UN scientists published a bible-sized report spelling out perils from rising seas, drought, flood and storms, an achievement that earned them, with green guru Al Gore, the Nobel Peace Prize.

In 2008, the issue began to fade and almost vanished completely when the world financial crisis struck.

Compared with demands to muster trillions of dollars and save millions of jobs, climate change suddenly looked to many politicians like a threat beyond the horizon.

Global warming only made its return to the world agenda towards year's end.

Barack Obama, newly elected, promised to bulldoze President George W. Bush's controversial climate policies. He vowed to set binding caps to drive down US emissions of greenhouse gases and stage a return to the global arena after eight years of isolation.

The European Union overcame internal feuding on the cost of going green by agreeing to slash emissions by 20 percent before 2020 over 1990, and spur energy efficiency and renewable sources.

That accord, at a fraught summit in Brussels last week, breathed life into talks in Poznan.

Just before dawn on Saturday, the 192-member UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) approved a work programme for negotiations leading up to the Copenhagen Treaty.

The stage is now set for a 12-month haggle focussing on this question: who should restrain their carbon emissions, by how much and by when?

Should the burden be shouldered just by rich countries, historically to blame for global warming?

Or should emerging giants such as China and India -- already massive polluters and set to be the big problem for decades to come -- break new ground by joining advanced economies in committing to binding emissions goals of some kind?

In exchange for these or other concessions, developing countries will set down hefty demands for help. Inventive solutions will be essential.

Underpinning it all is money: the cost of easing addiction to cheap, dirty fossil fuels and shoring up defences against climate change.

"I can pretend that it's not the case, but we all know that it is," UNFCCC chief Yvo de Boer admitted, as he reflected on the financial heart of the quid pro quo.

With storm clouds over the world economy, the outlook for Copenhagen is not good, judging by the time-worn principle that an economic crisis always trumps an environmental problem.

"Remember, this is a political exercise," said Tim Wirth, a former Democratic US senator who led climate negotiations under Bill Clinton.

"The people making these decisions have got to get elected. It is not scientists and environmentalists that are making these decisions."

Greens have argued for decades that the link between economic growth and polluting fossil fuels must be smashed and this has found powerful backers in Obama and UN chief Ban Ki-moon.

Ban called for a "Green New Deal" in which a chunk of the billions earmarked for reviving the world economy would leverage the switch to a job-creating, low-carbon future.

And he said he may hold a special summit during the UN General Assembly in September to give an extra push to the climate talks.

So many hopes are riding on Obama. But the next US president has just months to prove his credentials on climate change before the Copenhagen showdown, while at the same tackle the US economic crisis and juggle with powerful lobbies.

British economist Nicholas Stern, author of the 2006 Stern Review on the costs of climate change, said 2009 demanded boldness.

The world had the chance to make a historic shift, he argued in Poznan.

"We can actually lay the foundations over the next two years for the low-carbon growth which will be the sustaining growth of the future," Stern said.

But, he added: "I don't take any of this for granted. The human race has an incredibly well developed capacity to screw up, and we may miss this chance."

Read more!

Best of our wild blogs: 14 Dec 08

TeamSeagrass on Pulau Semakau
on the teamseagrass blog and wonderful creations blog and wild shores of singapore blog

New Seahorse ID book available!!
on the ashira v3.0b blog

Cyrene
on talfryn.net

Life History of the Green Baron
on the Butterflies of Singapore blog

Food for a kingfisher and a bee-eater
on the Bird Ecology Study Group blog

Syzygium sp. and the birds it attracts
on the Bird Ecology Study Group blog

Collared Scops Owl feeding fledgling
on the Bird Ecology Study Group blog

Read more!

Sewage and fish farm on St. John's Island

Repairs being done on damaged pipe
Reply to the Sunday Times 14 Dec 08;

We refer to the letter 'Sewage flow too close to fish farm' by Mr Freddie Choo (Nov 30), in which he raised concerns about the water quality near the pier at St John's Island.

A joint on-site inspection by Sentosa Development Corporation (SDC) and PUB was carried out on Nov 30 and a defective discharge pipe from a sewage treatment plant was found to be the cause of the discharge.

Measures were taken immediately by SDC, which operates and maintains the sewerage facilities on the island, to rectify the problem.

The pump that discharges the water into the sea will be shut until the damaged pipe is repaired. SDC is also taking measures to enhance the maintenance of the plant to improve its treatment efficiency.

We would like to assure MrChoo that all water discharged into the sea is treated at a treatment plant first to remove contaminants, as required by the authorities.

The Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA) regularly monitors the water quality at fish-farming areas.

Tests conducted last week have shown that water quality at AVA's experimental fish farm on St John's Island is within the guidelines set for fish culture, and that the fish from the farm are safe for consumption.

We would like to thank MrChoo for his feedback.

Suzanne Ho (Ms)
Deputy director, Communications
Sentosa Development Corporation

Goh Shih Yong
Assistant director, Corporate Communications
Agri-Food & Veterinary Authority

Tan Thai Pin
Director, Water Reclamation (Network)
PUB

Read more!

Frog farm in Singapore

Nice legs, shame about the croaky voice
Frog farm in Singapore urges visitors to come and enjoy its 6,000 strong 'frog orchestra' perform before they are sold for consumption
The Times 12 Dec 08;

American bullfrogs kick back at the the Jurong frog farm in Singapore, the only frog breeder in the city-state that raises bullfrogs primarily for human consumption. It is also an educational tourist attraction, urging visitors to come and enjoy its 6,000-strong “frog orchestra” and offering tips on how to tell male and female frogs apart.

The farm sells products such as Essence of Bullfrog with Ginseng and Cordyceps and Snow Frog Jelly, and offers recipes for “yummy frog porridge”. Singaporeans eat 2,000kg of frogs daily and the farm supplies 25 per cent of this amount.

Read more!

£5m fund to scrap fishing boats

BBC News 10 Dec 08;

Owners of inshore fishing boats in England are being offered £5m by the government to scrap their boats and leave the industry.

Boat owners welcomed the move, saying that tight EU fish quotas had made it increasingly tough to make a profit.

The scheme will compensate owners who scrap their boats and allow their share of the quota to be redistributed among the remaining fishing fleet.

But some crews said it would leave them without a boat and without a job.

Fisheries Minister Huw Irranca-Davies said: "I want to help keep as many fishermen in business as possible.

"Many fishermen are facing tough times, and we need to tackle the problems they face now and to lay the foundation that will get the inshore fleet on a sustainable long-term footing."

Mixed response

Nick Proust from the South-West Inshore Fishermen's Association welcomed the announcement, adding that the EU fishing quotas had made it uneconomic for many owners to keep sending their boats out to sea.

"We are not a failing industry; the only part of our industry that is failing is the legislation that is originating from Brussels," he told BBC News.

"At the end of the day, why shouldn't we be compensated for our businesses that we have legitimately run for years."

Ministers hope that reducing the size of inshore fishing fleets, which currently consists of 2,500 boats, will make more of the quota available to the remaining vessels.

However, Philip Hall, a skipper of a vessel based in Brixham, Devon, said the announcement offered nothing to the crews that worked on the boats.

"I've been here for six years, putting all my soul and effort into this boat, and we'll have to walk away with nothing.

"The owners won't give us a second thought; they'll just decommission the boats and that's us out of work."

Mr Irranca-Davies said: "I know these decisions will be difficult for some, but there are no easy answers and we have to make some tough choices."

Read more!

Crash in trash creates mountains of unwanted recyclables in US

American towns are being forced to abandon recycling their household waste after the global economic downturn has crashed the once profitable market for "trash".

Philip Sherwell, The Telegraph 13 Dec 08;

Mountains of used plastics, paper, metals and cardboard are piling up in the warehouses and yards of recycling companies across the US. Some contractors are negotiating to rent old military hangars and abandoned railway depots because they have run out of storage space for the glut of suddenly unwanted rubbish.

The collapse in the recycling market is a direct by-product of the financial crisis, as demand has slumped for material to be converted into everything from boxes for electronics to car parts and house fittings.

Householders have long been able to feel virtuous about their impact on the environment by sorting out their rubbish each week. But now the great trash market crash has even raised the environmentally alarming spectre that some waste intended for recycling may end up in landfills.

"The crash is all the more dramatic because as recently as mid-October the prices for recyclables stood at record highs," said Bruce Parker, president of the National Solid Wastes Management Association (NSWMA).

Newsprint is now fetching less than $60 (£40) a ton, down from $160; corrugated boxing has slumped from $50 a ton to $10; while tin fetches $5 a pound compared to about $25.

Other materials are performing even worse, Mr Parker said. His members are now having to pay for the removal of low-grade mixed paper that two months ago was bringing in $120 a ton. "And plastics, you cannot even give them away," he added with a sigh.

The previous surge in prices had largely been driven by soaring demand from China and India. The emerging economic powerhouses were swallowing up rubbish as soon Americans were discarding it - often to turn into goods and packing that were then sold back to the US.

But the demand from Asia has now collapsed as the economic crisis has spread around the globe. "We truly live in a global economy where what happens at one end of the earth directly affects business at the other end," said Mr Parker.

The impact is devastating commercially - and not just for recycling businesses. Already confronting crippling budget shortfalls, local and state authorities have now seen a lucrative source of income dry up as recycling centres are no longer paying for their rubbish.

Some towns have even suspended their recycling operations, although in much of the country those programmes are required by law.

Residents in West Virginia's Kanawha county, which includes the state capital Charleston, have been told to stockpile plastics and metals, the materials worst hit by the crash, as they will no longer be collected. Small towns with tight budgets are particularly badly affected – Frackville in Pennsylvania has recently suspended its recycling programme.

The collapse has even hit the nation's most prestigious academic institutions. Harvard University used to receive $10 a ton for mixed recyclables from a nearby centre, but last month was told that it would have to start paying $20 a ton to send students' discarded newspapers and empty bottles there.

"I have been in the recycling business for 30 years and never seen a time as bad as this," said Johnny Gold, senior vice-president of the Newark Group, one of America's biggest recycling companies.

"It's a combination of the economic collapse and Chinese over-capacity.

"Our industry is a textbook case of supply and demand. We sell our product to paper mills that make boxes to supply companies making goods and if those goods are not selling, then they don't need the boxes and they don't buy our product."

Mr Parker believes that the market may not bounce back until late 2010 - and by then the mountains of unwanted rubbish would have turned into major mountain ranges. The NSWMA argues that to handle the crisis, the US will have to step up investment in its own recycling mills to fill the gap left by Asia and that contractors may have to impose recycling surcharges.

"It may cost communities more in the meantime but from an environmental point of views, the savings in terms of reducing greenhouse emissions and other benefits are still much greater," he said.

Read more!

Cheaper Plastic Solar Cells In the Works

Diane Hinkens, livescience.com Yahoo News 13 Dec 08;

This Behind the Scenes article was provided to LiveScience in partnership with the National Science Foundation.

Sunlight, or solar radiation, is a remarkable phenomenon. It is the energy source in photosynthesis, makes us warm on summer days, and if future solar cells can be made more efficient and less costly, it may be our best source for reliable, clean and renewable energy.

As a postdoctoral researcher in the South Dakota State University (SDSU) Department of Electrical Engineering, I am working with my advisor Qiquan Qiao, an assistant professor in the department's Center for Advanced Photovoltaics, and Seth Darling, an assistant scientist at the Department of Energy's Argonne National Laboratory Center for Nanoscale Materials, to design, synthesize and eventually fabricate a more efficient and less costly solar cell.

We are trying to develop a cell that addresses the main challenge facing solar energy devices: absorb more of the sun's energy for electricity production.

Plastic cells

Unlike the vast majority of today's solar cells, which are expensive because they are made from silicon-based, or inorganic, semiconductors, the solar cell we are creating will be less costly as it will be made from organic, or carbon-based, semiconductors made from polymers. We will use two different types of polymers: one which is electron-deficient, an organoborane polymer, and one which is electron-rich, a thiophene polymer.

Since my skills are focused on creating organoborane molecules, which are made from carbon, boron and hydrogen, I rely heavily on Qiao, who is an expert in the physics of solar cells, and Darling, who is an expert in self-assembly and chemical computation. As we each have expertise in specialized areas of science, putting our ideas together to make this project work is really a great interdisciplinary research collaboration!

The organoborane and thiophene polymers are chain-like molecules made from carbon, boron, sulfur and hydrogen. These polymers have alternating double bonds and are flat, characteristics necessary for electrons to travel through the backbones of the polymers and produce electricity.

When we connect the organoborane and thiophene polymers, each with opposing electronic properties, we will create a "molecular p-n junction," key to collecting and using electrons for electricity.

By synthesizing the p-n junction within the polymer molecules, we hope to overcome many of the limitations of current organic solar cells.

Additionally, we will incorporate molecules known to absorb different wavelengths of light into the polymer chains. By doing this, we hope that these polymers will be able to absorb nearly the entire spectrum of visible light, which has wavelengths ranging from approximately 400 nanometers (violet light) to 750 nanometers (red light), thereby harnessing much more of our sun's energy.

Self-assembling arrays

One reason my collaborators and I chose to research these polymers is because they may be capable of self-assembling in just a few seconds to form very tiny, ordered arrays of materials. The arrays will allow the electrons to more easily find their path out of the ordered blocks to produce electricity.

The proposed solar cell would consist of approximately 1015, or one quadrillion, polymer molecules enclosed in an area of just one square centimeter.

The immediate goal for our research project is to develop a greater understanding of this class of materials, knowledge that will be used down the line to develop and fabricate our proposed solar cell.

Printing cells

To identify which polymer structures best fit our requirements, I have been using a commercial computational chemistry software program that will give me direction for the biggest challenge of this project, which will be making and characterizing these polymers.

These solar cells may be inexpensive to produce because the organic polymers can be created using low-cost techniques like reel-to-reel processing, similar to the method behind newspaper printing, which results in a material that is lightweight and mechanically flexible.

In September 2008, I was awarded an inaugural National Science Foundation American Competitiveness in Chemistry Fellowship, a two-year grant that is giving me an opportunity to both contribute to U.S. competitiveness and to involve students from traditionally underrepresented groups in this important area of science. I plan to develop a solar cell laboratory for the Chicago Science Alliance, which supports science teachers in the Chicago Public Schools, and to work with my advisor to develop hands-on activities describing solar cell materials for inclusion in a mobile science laboratory. The lab would travel across South Dakota to reach small rural schools as well as schools on Native American reservations.

Read more!

Greenwash: Are carbon offsetters taking us for a ride?

The carbon offset industry cannot agree on how much to charge for CO2 emissions, nor how much you produce when you fly, writes Fred Pearce
Comments (19)

Fred Pearce, guardian.co.uk 11 Dec 08;

Flying somewhere this Christmas, or planning a ski trip? Arguably, given the carbon emissions involved, you just shouldn't.

But if you do, will you offset those flight emissions? Some people fuss that the offset companies are a green con. How do we know the trees we pay for won't die? Are we just subsidising renewable energy projects that were going to happen anyway?

Fair questions. But questions for another day. I have another problem. Why does the price of offsetting vary so much? Are we being ripped off?

Spend even a few minutes searching the internet offsetters and you will find two things. First, the prices charged for offsetting every tonne of CO2 you emit vary hugely. Second, the offsetters can't even agree on how great your emissions are for any particular flight.

Let's start with ClimateCare, based in Oxford. I have offset with them before, because I like the people and the projects. For a return economy flight from Heathrow to JFK in New York, they reckon my emissions are 1.53 tonnes. Earlier this week they wanted to charge me nearly £9 a tonne, making a total of £13.22. Type in your credit card details and it's done. Your money goes to fund some cooking stoves in Cambodia or wind turbines in Inner Mongolia.

But a more or less random sample of other offsetters this week provided me with some very different offers. The London-based CarbonNeutral company and Carbonpassport in Glasgow both say my New York return journey emits just over 1.3 tonnes. Terrapass in San Francisco puts it at just 0.84 tonnes. While Atmosfair in Berlin suggests I will be responsible for 3.48 tonnes. All are measuring the CO2 the same way; all are assuming a regular economy flight. The differences are baffling.

Then there is the price charged per tonne, which ranges from £17.50 at Carbonpassport to only half that with CarbonNeutral.

Put it all together, and Terrapass swears that I can offset my transatlantic hop with them for a measly $11.90 or £8.00. CarbonNeutral sound competitive at £11.90. But Atmosfairs wants €81, or £69.85.

And my spot survey didn't find the full range. A couple of weeks ago, Paul Hooper of Manchester Metropolitan University's centre for air transport and the environment published his own study, conducted last winter, of more than 42 online offsetters. He found a sixfold difference in the price charged per tonne of carbon emitted. And, taking in the higher charges that some offsetting companies make for a bigger, business- or first-class seat, discovered price tags for a return trip from London to Sydney that ranged from £9.48 to a staggering £643.39, almost a 70-fold difference.

Now, if I was buying a laptop or something similar and got offered such a range of prices, I'd probably just pay the least and send it back if it didn't work. But with offsets, there is nothing to take out of the box. At the end of the day, I have no real idea what exactly it is that I have bought. And maybe it is ethically better to pay more. The offsetters are all supposed to be good guys, doing their bit for the planet, after all. The more money they get, the more they can help. But maybe not.

So what's going on? I'm still not quite sure why some companies reckon they can absorb a tonne of carbon so much more cheaply than others. I'd welcome inside information on this from any companies not delivering.

But after a bit of pestering, I have established why they can't agree on the mileage. There are a few technical things like how full you assume the plane is. And maybe the odd discrepancy over flight routes and aircraft type. New planes generally emit less. But the big difference is a scientific disagreement.

It turns out that the companies with low emission estimates simply calculate how much carbon dioxide planes kick out of their engines per passenger-kilometre. But the rest try to factor in other emissions from the engines that also add to the global warming. Things like the contrails and the nitrous oxide emissions that do a bunch of different things to atmospheric chemistry that I won't go into here.

The problem is that factoring these in is complicated. There is no single answer. Some companies reckon these emissions double the global warming effect. Some triple it. Some go even higher.

This is because the answer depends on timescales. If you mostly care about the short-term effects over the next decade or so, then these other gases are big players. But if you have your ambitions set on protecting the climate for your grandchildren, then they will have long since gone, while the CO2 will still be hanging round in the atmosphere.

You would have thought the offsetting companies might have come up with some agreed rules about how to measure the overall global warming impact of greenhouse gases. But they haven't. Instead confusion reigns.

Once, we might have shaken our heads indulgently, thinking that at least they are encouraging us to cough up our cash for good projects that somewhere along the line will help clean up the atmosphere. Maybe the details don't matter too much.

After all, you wouldn't insist on personally checking the health of an Oxfam goat before giving that to your nearest and dearest for Christmas.

But in recent months, there has been a shake-down in the carbon offsetting business. The start-ups are being taken over. The enthusiasts in cardigans and riding bicycles are giving way to money men in sharp suits driving limos. A few months ago my own favourite, ClimateCare, got gobbled up by Wall Street investment bank JPMorgan. Call me prejudiced, but suddenly I don't want to give them the benefit of the doubt any more.

Read more!

Poor accuse rich of meanness in U.N. climate fight

Gerard Wynn and Gabriela Baczynska, Reuters 13 Dec 08;

POZNAN, Poland (Reuters) - Developing nations accused the rich of meanness on Saturday at the end of U.N. climate talks that launched only a tiny fund to help poor countries cope with droughts, floods and rising seas.

They said the size of the Adaptation Fund -- worth just $80 million -- was a bad omen at the halfway mark of two years of negotiations on a new treaty to fight global warming designed to be agreed in Copenhagen at the end of 2009.

"We are so sad and so disappointed," Colombian Environment Minister Juan Lozano said of the December 1-12 talks, which went on into the early hours of Saturday and have been overshadowed by worries that global economic woes are drying up donor cash.

"The human side of climate change is the suffering of our orphans and our victims and that was not considered here. It's a bad signal on the road to Copenhagen," said Lozano.

"I must say that this is one of the saddest moments I have witnessed in all these years," Indian representative Prodipto Ghosh told delegates at the 189-nation talks, adding he had attended U.N. climate meetings for 12 years.

Several other nations including Brazil, Costa Rica and Maldives made similar remarks.

Many delegates expressed hopes that U.S. President-elect Barack Obama would adopt more aggressive climate policies.

Environment ministers at the talks in Poland set rules for the Adaptation Fund, which is meant to help poor nations build flood defenses, develop drought-resistant crops, or produce storm warnings.

Polish Environment Minister Maciej Nowicki, the host, said the launch of the fund was the biggest achievement of Poznan. The fund, which can start paying out cash in 2009, has just $80 million but could rise to $300 million a year by 2012.

BILLIONS NEEDED

U.N. projections are that poor nations will need tens of billions of dollars a year by 2030 to cope with climate change. Poland spent 24 million euros ($31.84 million) just to host the December 1-12 conference.

Developing nations accused the rich of blocking agreement in Poznan on a wider funding mechanism that could raise about $2 billion a year. The issue was delayed until 2009.

Yvo de Boer, head of the U.N. Climate Change Secretariat, said the talks achieved all they had set out to do but acknowledged there was "some bitterness."

"Half the work (for Copenhagen) hasn't been done," he said.

Still, he said Poznan had achieved a main task of reviewing progress toward a sweeping new global climate treaty in Copenhagen in December 2009 to replace the Kyoto Protocol.

Environmentalists disagreed.

"We are desperately disappointed with the progress here," said Stephanie Tunmore of the Greenpeace environmental group. "The stocktaking bit wasn't difficult: 'What did we do in 2008? Not much'."

Environmentalists accused Australia, Canada, Japan and New Zealand of blocking progress and failing to set ambitious new goals to cut emissions. By contrast, countries including Mexico, China and South Africa laid out ideas to curb rising emissions.

European Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas said talks were on track. "Everyone said the fight against climate change is consistent with tackling the economic crisis," he said.

European Union ministers in Poznan expressed relief after EU leaders in Brussels agreed a pact on Friday to cut greenhouse gases by 20 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 -- after making costly concessions to east European countries.

Under the Adaptation Fund, cash is raised by a 2 percent levy on a U.N. system of projects to cut greenhouse gas emissions in poor nations. The levy has raised 60 million euros ($80 million) so far.

(Additional reporting by Anna Mudeva, Megan Rowling and Alister Doyle)

(Editing by Michael Roddy and Ralph Gowling)

Read more!