Stars on Sembawang Beach?
on the wild shores of singapore blog
It hurts...
on the annotated budak blog
Pacific Golden Plover catching a crab
on the Bird Ecology Study Group blog
Solar-powered green sea slug steals ability to photosynthesise from algae
from Not Exactly Rocket Science
Singaporeans do care
40,000 sign petition to end animal cruelty –the most in Asia so far
Esther Ng, Today Online 27 Dec 08;
THE feat surprised even animal rights activists here: Singaporeans have become the first in Asia to put 40,000 signatures to the Universal Declaration for Animal Welfare (UDAW).
The petition, begun by nearly 200 animal welfare groups worldwide, will be presented to the United Nations once 10 million signatures are collected. So far, 1.8 million have been amassed. In the Asia Pacific, Singapore is second only to Australia (140,635), scoring more signatures than New Zealand (36,545) and Thailand (29,734).
Mr Louis Ng, executive director of the Animal Concerns Research and Education Society (Acres), which is behind the campaign here, called this a “pleasant surprise amid all the bad economic news”.
He said when Acres started campaigning for UDAW two years ago, holding more than 130 roadshows, it did not expect to garner so much support from Singaporeans. He puts the success down to “personal touch” and “the work of a bunch of passionate volunteers”.
“Unlike online petitions where you go and click a button, our volunteers at our roadshows explain to people why animals matter and why animal cruelty has to end ... Many (afterwards) sign the petition. It shows that Singaporeans do care for issues of no economic value,” said Mr Ng.
That Singaporeans are becoming more aware of animal welfare issues, and taking a more active role in supporting these, should not come as a total surprise.
Over the last 10 years, a number of Singaporeans have started their own animal shelters, taking in abandoned dogs and cats.
Action for Singapore Dog’s (ASD) president Ricky Yeo reckons “at least 20 to 30 individuals or groups have sprung up, just by the number of people that come to us for help or advice”. He said: “You could say the Internet, the green movement help make people more aware about animal cruelty and want to do something about it.”
Many of these animal welfare groups run educational and sterilisation programmes that could have contributed to increased awareness among Singaporeans. For instance, the Cat Welfare Society’s “trap-neuter-release-and-manage” programme of neutering strays and managing the cat population is run by a network of volunteers which number in the hundreds.
Then there are individuals like Ms Lynn Lam, who started a network of some 300 cat welfare volunteers in the west and east of Singapore — as well as the Singapore Zoo’s educational and conservation programmes over the decades. These, too, have contributed to the overall consciousness of animal well-being.
In 2005, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong recognised the growth of animal welfare groups in Singapore in his Budget Speech and urged Singaporeans to donate to causes like this. The Government has also decided to broaden the definition of charitable activities to include sports, environment protection and animal welfare.
Acres, meanwhile, is not resting on its laurels — it will continue campaigning for UDAW at its monthly roadshows at shopping centres next year.
Laws make good progress: Acres founder
Today Online 27 Dec 08;
ACRES founder Louis Ng has been highlighting the problem of endangered wildlife trafficking for the past seven years, so, when the Singapore Government last year tightened the law on this, he was elated.
The fine is now $50,000 per animal, a jail term of up to two years, or both. Previously, it was only $5,000 per species.
“This change in legislation shows that the Government is taking a strong stand on trafficking,” said Mr Ng, when asked to give his take on where Singapore stood in terms of animal welfare-friendly laws.
While the maximum penalties for animal cruelty have increased from a $500 fine and/or jail term of 6 months, to a fine of $10,000 and/or jail term of 12 months, animal activists say the law is feebly enforced.
They cite the case of serial animal abuser David Hooi, who upon being released from jail after a month, went on to kill another kitten.
The penalty for abandonment of an animal is $10,000, a jail term of 12 months, or both, but according to ASD president Ricky Yeo, there has yet to be a case “where a person has been prosecuted for abandonment”.
Last year, the AVA introduced stricter licensing rules for pet farms to regulate the sale of pets. Activists think more can be done as this has not reduced the number of dogs abandoned. Instead, they say the number of animals sold in pet shops or through backyard breeders has increased.
“I’ve had Australia animal welfare groups telling ASD that Australian puppy mills are exporting puppies to farms in Singapore,” said Mr Yeo.
More links
Ali Smith, Channel NewsAsia 28 Dec 08;
SINGAPORE: Pulau Semakau may be Singapore's only remaining landfill. But if an ambitious environmental conservation project pays off, there are hopes the island could someday be upgraded to a marine park.
The three-year project is a S$600,000 community initiative bankrolled by HSBC.
Volunteers will be crucial to the success of Project Semakau.
It aims to mobilise over 3,000 volunteers to survey and collect data on the 350-hectare island's inter-tidal shores.
"I hear about the loss of corals because of global warming and I think it's important to preserve our marine life here," said Jen Wong, one of the volunteers.
Dhavalakshmi Palanivelu, another volunteer, said: "We have very little natural landscape left here in Singapore, so we should preserve what we have left."
At the project's launch, HSBC handed its S$600,000 commitment to the Raffles Museum of Biodiversity Research.
So far, about 50 volunteers have been trained by science experts from the Raffles Museum of Biodiversity Research.
They will begin leading groups at the inter-tidal shores early next year to teach them the value of the island as a conservation site.
Volunteers will include the public and university students who will spread the message of balancing urbanisation with conservation.
Professor Leo Tan, National University of Singapore's director for special projects, said: "We can have the biggest buildings and the highest ships and so forth and we can have a great economy, but unless the air is clean, the water is clean, the food is clean, we are not going to have any future at all."
- CNA/ir
Straits Times 29 Dec 08;
ACCOUNTANT Michel Lepaulnier no longer battles the crowds on the Paris Metro during the early morning rush hour.
Instead, he hops on a rented bicycle near his home in the bohemian area of Montmartre on the right bank of the River Seine and cycles to his workplace about 7.5km away.
The 45-year-old pays nothing for renting the bicycle if he completes his journey within 30minutes, which he usually does.
Paris' bicycle rental system, called the Velib, has become a popular means of transport for both locals and tourists.
The success of the system, which has reduced congestion in the city and improved the environment, has the Singapore authorities considering a similar set-up here.
Last month, the Land Transport Authority said it was looking into setting up bicycle kiosks at MRT stations to provide bicycles, and bike-washing and parking facilities.
The Velib, which was started by the Paris town council last year, counts more than 20,000 bicycles spread across 1,450 stations located outside restaurants, on side streets and at tourist attractions, among other places.
The stations are spread across the entire 86.9sq km of Paris and serve two million people. The stations are no more than 300m apart and each has space for 20 to 35 bicycles.
'It's wonderful... I don't have to invest in a bicycle and it's really good exercise,' said Mr Lepaulnier.
Cyclists who hold on to the bike for more than 30 minutes pay ¥1 (S$2) for the first additional half hour, ¥2 for the second, and ¥4 for the third onwards. Commuters can also buy an annual subscription for ¥29.
To ensure that the system is not abused, cyclists have to wait a few minutes after returning their bicycles before borrowing another one. They must also register their credit card and put up a ¥150 deposit, which is deducted if the bike is not returned within 24 hours.
A Straits Times check found the system easy to use as it is available in languages other than French, including English.
Cycling in the city is also a breeze as cars do not try to squeeze cyclists out of the lanes. Some parts of the city have bicycle-only lanes or lanes allowing only bikes and buses.
In land-scarce Singapore, providing such cycling facilities may pose a problem. Another obstacle here is the hot and humid weather.
In Paris, the Velib has been instrumental in reducing congestion on the roads, greenhouse gases, and is also a welcome means of exercise.
But some issues raised by cyclists there include not being able to rent helmets, and having to circle around to find a station to return their bikes to when the one they want fills up.
MARIA ALMENOAR
The reptiles, especially softshell turtles, are prized in China as food and as a source for traditional medicines. U.S. experts fear the trade could lead to extinctions.
Kim Christensen, LA Times 27 Dec 08;er 27, 2008
The turtle tank at Nam Hoa Fish Market is empty, but not to worry: The manager of this bustling Chinatown store says he has plenty in back.
"Big ones," he says, spreading his hands as wide as a Christmas turkey.
He nods to a worker, who slides a large, waxed-cardboard box from a stack behind the counter and strips off the lid. Inside is a squirming burlap bag, from which he dumps two 15-pound softshell turtles that hit the concrete with a clop, then flail helplessly on their backs.
"Miami," the shopkeeper says of the reptiles' origins. "All from Miami."
Fresh off a plane at Los Angeles International Airport, one of the hubs of the sprawling international turtle trade, the critters will help feed a huge and growing appetite for freshwater turtles as food and medicine.
The demand pits ancient culture against modern conservation and increasingly threatens turtle populations worldwide. As Asian economies boomed, more and more people began buying turtle, once a delicacy beyond their budgets. Driven in particular by Chinese demand, Asian consumption has all but wiped out wild turtle populations not just in China, but in Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia and elsewhere in the region. Now conservationists fear that the U.S. turtle population could be eaten into extinction.
"It's insatiable," says Matt Aresco, a Florida biologist and director of the private Nokuse Plantation conservation reserve in the Florida Panhandle. "If we harvested every single turtle in Florida and sent every single one to Asia, there would still be a demand for more," he says. "That's how scary it is."
Federal law prohibits the capture of endangered or protected species. But it does not cover common turtles such as Florida's softshells, whose widely varying population estimates range from 4 million to 20 million. Softshells also abound in other, mostly Southern, states, some of which, including Texas, Oklahoma, Alabama and Mississippi, have banned or severely limited commercial harvests. Until recently, Florida had no limits on softshell harvests.
In Chinese communities around the world, turtles are coveted for their meat, which is thought to enhance longevity and sexual prowess. They're also used to make tonics believed to boost the immune system, and for other traditional medicines intended to treat an array of ailments, including cancer, arthritis and heart disease.
Carl Chu, the author of "Finding Chinese Food in Los Angeles," recalls growing up in his native Taiwan and watching as turtles' heads were cut off and their blood mixed with alcohol, then drunk as an aphrodisiac. It's one small illustration of an age-old Chinese belief that all kinds of food are therapeutic, he says.
"Anything that can be eaten is eaten to obtain some medicinal effect, and that includes turtles," he says.
Helen Nguyen, who has owned Nam Hoa Fish Market for 26 years, says that many of the turtles she sells for $6.99 a pound, before butchering, end up as soup in Chinese restaurants in Alhambra and Monterey Park, communities with large Asian populations.
The big, brownish-green softshells are most desirable because a 12-pounder will yield about half its weight in meat, she says. Its leathery shell also can be steamed and eaten.
"Most often, older people eat it," Nguyen says. "For the body. For the health. Makes you healthy."
In 1999, an international consortium of biologists and others estimated that the Asian turtle trade had grown to about 10 million of the reptiles a year, or 30,000 a day. By many accounts, demand has since grown dramatically.
During the peak season in late summer and early fall, the creatures are pulled by the thousands from Florida lakes, rivers, ponds, canals, drainage ditches and abandoned phosphate pits.
Those who catch them typically use baited hooks on trotlines, some stretching for miles. Their catch is bagged, boxed and shipped live to U.S. customers on both coasts and the Gulf of Mexico -- and to Asian gateways such as Hong Kong and Taiwan.
One Florida seafood dealer said his company had processed up to 20,000 pounds a week -- a couple of thousand adult turtles. Another broker ships nearly that much, according to a Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission report this year.
Many of the shipments go through LAX.
"In rough numbers, it's probably about 800 turtles a week, and they're going to southern China and Hong Kong," says Joe Ventura, an inspector with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Los Angeles. "It used to be a luxury item there. Now it's just a routine thing that people eat."
Christmas packaging, millions of trees and up to a billion cards are heading to landfill – even though much of it could be recycled
Rachel Shields, The Independent 28 Dec 08;
This is a toy story, but it has no happy ending. As millions of households wade through crumpled wrapping, plastic ties and discarded boxes, the sheer weight of refuse in coming days is expected to smash all records.
Waste watchdogs warned yesterday that rubbish from the estimated 100 million toys unwrapped last week is likely to burn big holes in the ozone layer as well as in parents' pockets.
The Waste and Resources Action Programme (Wrap) said toy manufacturers are not putting enough information about recycling on their packaging and, as a result, most of it will be sent needlessly to landfill. Over Christmas 2008 alone, this will lead to more than 400 extra tonnes of harmful C02. The news is a blow to the Government's 2007 Waste Strategy, which aims to see 40 per cent of all household waste recycled by 2010.
A survey by Recycle Now showed that while 89 per cent of British parents with children under the age of 12 would like to recycle toy packaging, 53 per cent found it difficult to know what was suitable for recycling.
"A large proportion of the packaging material from toys is actually recyclable because it is made from paper or cardboard," said Andy Dawe, Wrap's head of retail. "It is helpful for consumers to have labelling on the types of material that make up the packaging and which of these can be recycled. It also makes a real difference if different materials can be separated. For example, where a box includes cardboard with a plastic window, it should be made as simple as possible to remove the window."
The government-funded agency is now calling on toy manufacturers to improve recycling instructions on their products, and for consumers to redouble their recycling efforts.
"It's for manufacturers, government-led organisations and consumers themselves to do this," said Natasha Crookes of the British Toy & Hobby Association (BTHA). "Seventy per cent of toy packaging is now recyclable, so it is really about getting people to recycle, especially at Christmas when everyone is busy unwrapping their presents."
British households generate 20 per cent more waste during the festive period, including one billion Christmas cards, eight million Christmas trees and 83 sq kms of wrapping paper.
Toy manufacturers are required by law to carry safety warnings on packaging, but are not obliged to include recycling instructions. The BTHA is currently drawing up new packaging guidelines that will include recycling.
Many retailers have made steps towards reducing packaging. Boots reviewed its gift sets and relaunched them this Christmas with reduced packaging. The online retailer Amazon recently launched a "frustration-free packaging" service, which reduces excess wrapping and which will begin in the UK after Christmas.
In 2007, the UK recycled 9.7 million tonnes of household waste, an increase of 10 per cent on the previous year. However, some fear that the current economic downturn may lead to companies prioritising profits over their environmental obligations.
"It is vitally important that we carry on recycling," Mr Dawe said. "If we stop, all materials will go to landfill – and that is the worst possible outcome."
First time at Sultan Shoal
on the wonderful creation blog and manta blog and discovery blog.
Dead Colugo found near Chestnut Drive
on the Flying Fish Friends blog
Vertebrates of Pulau Semakau
on the wild shores of singapore blog and scenic semakau with some less happy sightings.
Life History of the Fulvous Pied Flat
on the Butterflies of Singapore blog
Pied Imperial Pigeons eating palm fruits
on the Bird Ecology Study Group blog
New Straits Times 28 Dec 08;
Q: Whose idea was the system?
A: The satellite-based computerised system was mooted by the Malaysian Remote Sensing Agency and the Forestry Department and it started on the instructions of Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak who chaired the 20th National Forest Council meeting in September 2006.
Q: When was it completed?
A: It was completed in August this year and launched in October. The agency manages the system which is used by the department.
Q: What does the system do?
A: It monitors both licensed concession areas to detect compliance with regulations as well as high potential areas for illegal land clearing.
By identifying illegal land clearing, we can detect forest fires and help in haze prevention.
The images are also used to build a national forest inventory of the country's total area of forest cover.
This can be used to estimate the timber volume from the forests.
Q: Why do we need an inventory?
A: The inventory contributes to the national effort for forest and environmental sustainability.
There is always criticism that our forests are diminishing.
Q: How does it work?
A: We receive the data from the French Spot (Satellite Pour l'Observation de la Terre earth-observing satellites) through our ground receiving centre in Temerloh and it is processed within six hours.
The data is then placed in our database which is linked to the department.
To access any information, the department gets on to the Internet and calls up the specific page to check if logging carried out in that area is legal. The department will also go down to the field to check.
Q: What is considered illegal logging?
A: Logging outside the concession area as well as in protected areas such as riverbanks, areas above 1,000m and slopes of more that 40 degrees gradient. Also illegal is the building of logging tracks outside the logging concession area as well as logging of prohibited trees.
Q: How often are the images taken?
A: For licensed logging areas as well as sensitive areas, we take the images once a week.
Sensitive areas are those with high potential for forest clearing and the Spot satellite, which has a 2.3m resolution which can detect individual trees, passes over the same spot once a week.
For less sensitive areas, which consist of normal forest cover, the images are taken monthly.
Q: Does the system cover the whole country?
A: Currently the system is only for Peninsular Malaysia because we are working with the Forestry Department of Peninsular Malaysia. We can always extend it to Sabah and Sarawak.
Q: How much did the system cost?
A: Only RM120,000. The system was built using existing resources and internal expertise.
Q: Can the images be used as evidence in court?
A: Satellite images have been used to prosecute land owners for open burning so this has potential to be used as evidence in court.
That was a manual system where the image has to be interpreted manually.
This system has all the relevant data incorporated into it, including the template for licensed land boundaries, so it is immediately known that an offence is being committed.
Q: What is the difference between this system and the airborne hyperspectral imaging kit that has a sensor hooked to a computer and global positioning system device?
A: That is an airborne system. Our satellite system is more reliable and cheaper as we don't need an aircraft to operate it.
Our system will also have more frequent images and cover a wider area and it is linked online to the Forestry Department.
'Only field evidence can be used in court'
New Straits Times 28 Dec 08;
Q: What happens when you receive the images?
A: The satellite images are acquired by the Malaysian Remote Sensing Agency and processed.
When the end product is obtained, it will be sent to us and we will access it online. We will then verify the images.
We have a Geographic Information Section (GIS) which will produce hard copies of the images.
Verification can also be done by the state and district offices.
Then, we have to verify the images on the ground. This can be done by state, district or headquarters officers.
The results of this ground check will then be passed on to the enforcement unit.
Q: Why can't action be taken during the ground check? Why does the information have to be passed to the enforcement unit?
A: We have an enforcement unit at the headquarters and several at state forest departments.
By law, every officer posted to a state has to be gazetted in that state.
Only gazetted officers have the locus standi to carry out enforcement in the respective states.
There are plans to amend the National Forestry Act 1984 where federal enforcement officers will be gazetted to be able to carry out enforcement in the states.
Q: How long will everything take?
A: When the Malaysian Remote Sensing Agency receives the satellite images, it is in a raw form. The images can be full of distortions like lines, blurring or even cloud cover.
They have to be cleaned and aligned to the scales and coordinates.
The GIS unit will verify the data within two hours as it has to compare the images with our most current base map because the template used could be outdated due to changes in land use and new issuances of licences.
The verification part is to see if there is abuse. We have to ascertain whether what is on the imagery and on the ground is the same.
Our target is to complete everything within 24 hours.
Q: Do you have enough staff for all this?
A: We need dedicated officers to do the verification work and we need to employ them. At the moment, we have officers from different sections helping out.
Q: Can the images be used as evidence in court?
A: At present, the satellite images are not used to prosecute offenders. Only field evidence is used.
However, it has potential to be used as we have included it as an amendment to the National Forestry Act to be used as evidence.
Malaysia uses satellite to fight illegal logging: report
Yahoo News 27 Dec 08;
KUALA LUMPUR (AFP) – Malaysia is zooming in on forests with a satellite in order to fight illegal logging which its government says is harming the major timber exporting country, a report said Sunday.
Darus Ahmad, deputy director-general with the Malaysian Remote Sensing Agency, said the "eye in the sky" programme was put in place in October.
"There is always criticisms that our forests are diminishing," he was quoted as saying by the New Sunday Times newspaper.
Darus said that using satellite images the authorities can establish a national forest inventory of the country's total area of forest cover.
They can then check whether logging in a particular area is legal or not, he said, adding that the facility was currently available in the western peninsular part of Malaysia only.
Darus also said the system can be used to prevent air pollution by detecting forest fires and illegal land clearing.
In the 1990s alone, Malaysia lost more than 13 percent of its forests, with much of the deforestation on the island of Borneo, which it shares with Indonesia and Brunei.
The World Wildlife Fund at the time estimated that illegally logged trees made up about one third of Malaysia's timber exports.
Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi last year pledged not to indiscriminately approve logging licences, amid mounting concern that clearances are threatening endangered species and tribal communities.
Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak, who also heads the National Forestry Council, later warned that illegal logging could undermine Malaysia.
"It can jeopardise our efforts to preserve biodiversity, flora and fauna and have an impact on global warming. At the international level, illegal logging portrays a negative image of our country," he said.
"It can harm our national economy as the timber industry produces 23 billion ringgit (6.8 billion dollars) worth of wood-based products a year," he added.
The European Union market accounts for about 30 percent of Malaysia's annual timber exports.
SAM Urge Government To Preserve Mangrove Forest
Bernama 26 Dec 08;
PENANG, Dec 26 (Bernama) -- Sahabat Alam Malaysia (SAM) has urged the government to stop all activities in mangroves forest and pay serious attention to the threat posed by the aquaculture industry which has resulted in the deterioration of the mangrove forest eco-system.
SAM president S.M. Mohamed Idris said there was a need to re-consider the industrial aquaculture zones and prohibit aquaculture activities in mangrove forest.
"The government should also develop a strong policy and law to control the aquaculture industry as well as to rehabilitate damaged mangrove forest to ensure protection for our coastlines," he told reporters here, Friday.
He said the areas that were badly hit by Tsunami in 2004 like Acheh and Thailand suffered huge losses because the mangrove forest had been converted for aquaculture industries.
"The tragedy of Tsunami created a chaotic situation throughout the world and these are valuable lessons to avert future tragedies especially in the light of adverse impact of climate change in the future," he said.
He said areas comprising mangrove forest in Malaysia has decreased drastically despite a warning by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi to stop any invasion and destruction of mangrove forest and a call to replant mangrove trees.
In conjunction with the Tsunami anniversary in Penang today SAM, in collaboration with the Consumer Association of Penang (CAP) would replant about 6,000 mangrove trees in six different locations in Kedah, Penang and Perak.
The Tsunami, triggered by an earthquake in the Indian Ocean, off Sumatra on Dec 26, 2004 claimed over 230,000 lives in countries like Indonesia, India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Somalia, Maldives and Malaysia.
-- BERNAMA
Planting saplings to mark tsunami
New Straits Times 28 Dec 08;
BUKIT MERTAJAM: The tradition of planting mangrove saplings in remembrance of the Dec 26, 2004 tsunami tragedy continued yesterday with 4,000 saplings planted in Sungai Sembilang, Kuala Juru, here.
The project was a joint effort of Sahabat Alam Malaysia (SAM), Consumers Association of Penang (CAP), Penang Inshore Fishermen's Welfare Association (Pifwa) and National Peninsular Inshore Fishermen's Action Network (Jaring).
Pifwa chairman Ilias Shafie said 1,000 of the saplings were donated by Intel workers.
Pifwa has planted more than 100,000 saplings along the Penang coastline since 1997.
The sites included Sungai Burung in Balik Pulau, Kuala Sungai Chenaam in Sungai Acheh, Kuala Sungai Kerian in Byram, Nibong Tebal, Kuala Muda in Penaga, Pulau Burung in Nibong Tebal and Batu Kawan.
In Jerlun, Bernama reports that the tradition was also continued by a group of Universiti Sains Malaysia students and residents of Tepi Laut village in Ayer Hitam, who planted mangrove saplings along the coast.
The project, in its fourth year since the tsunami, saw 1,000 saplings planted in the area as a precaution against erosion.
The project was carried out with the co-operation of SAM from Kuala Kerpan to Kuala Tunjang near here, as well as in Langkawi and Sungai Merbok, Sungai Semilang in Penang, Kuala Kurau in Perak and Pontian in Johor, said SAM marine research officer Norsalila Aris.
In Port Klang, the corporate sector also got into the act with Northport (Malaysia) Bhd jointly organising a one-day coastal care carnival with the Klang Municipal Council and Selangor Water Management Board to focus on the conservation of mangroves at the Tanjung Harapan Esplanade yesterday.
The carnival saw an overwhelming response from Port Klang residents, who participated in the activities, which included a fishing competition, an auto show, a colouring contest and a blood donation campaign, in addition to planting 500 saplings along the coastline.
Orang Besar Daerah Klang Datuk Abdul Ghani Pateh Akhir, when launching the carnival, said the programme would also boost the tourism industry as clean and beautiful beaches would draw more tourists.
Why get seduced if you can't afford it?
Reggie J, The New Paper 28 Dec 08;
WE all remember those heady days when we went to the shops and shopped till we dropped with not a care in the world.
If Singapore's huge credit card debt is anything like what we read it is, it still barely raises a blip on our radar.
It's (still) like there's no tomorrow - flashing credit cards from morning to night.
Advertising, in our excessive and compulsive consumerist society, creates new needs and dreams that are usually fulfilled by buying XYZ.
But has it gone completely berserk?
The growth of discount vouchers has seen the rise of 'voucheristas' - people who choose their supermarket, shops and petrol based on whether there's a bonus point or freebie offered.
What can we make of these freebies - free sweepstakes, free samples, free coupons, free vouchers, loyalty points and other free chocolate-flavoured or beauty-based bonuses - to seduce and woo us to buy for some reason or other?
I just don't get the whole shopping experience thing. If you need a service or product, you should be able to just buy it without feeling the need for the experience to be enriching.
Is there so little poetry in our lives that we feel creativity only comes from marketing?
I wonder if the parallel rise in Internet shopping is a reaction to this constant enticement to shop stronger, harder, longer!
Are online shoppers better off because they're not staying in a retailer for longer and buying unnecessary things or, even worse, because even a rude sales assistant is some sort of social interaction?
Is trawling through a mall a form of exercise or is it all foiled by the promise of an overwhelming choice of fast foods available at every corner?
At a time when we're seeing a rise in depression, where a growing number of people are suffering the effects of debt, job loss and where families have borrowed too much or over-capitalising on their homes and lives, where debt of all kinds is normal, do we really need to be seduced to our detriment?
The fact is that we have become a nation measuring out our lives in shopping bags and nursing our psychic ills through retail therapy.
Shopping has the ability to raise our spirits - as well as our overdraft - whatever the time.
It's the ultimate pick-me-up.
Cheers! Pour another Merlot and let's go shopping.
The writer is a former Singaporean marketing professional.
If you go down to the woods...
Support is growing for ‘rewilding’, which could see bears, wolves and elk roaming Britain
Jonathan Leake, The Times 28 Dec 08;
You are on safari amid lynx, bears and elk. The wetlands around you are dominated by small lakes created by beaver dams. In the distance a wolf howls.
Nothing unusual perhaps – except that this is not northern Canada but Scotland sometime in the near future.
Down in the Lake District, the neat fields and walls that make the area one of Britain’s most manicured “wildernesses” are also changing. The native woodlands of the Ennerdale valley are spreading, Highland cattle have replaced sheep and there has even been talk of reintroducing beaver and bison.
Welcome to rewilding, a movement that is radicalising conservation biology, turning what had been a scientific backwater into one of its most controversial areas. What the rewilders want is nothing less than the reversal of thousands of years of domestication, returning vast tracts of countryside to the way they looked thousands of years ago. They believe the best way to achieve this is by bringing back the biggest and fiercest animals of all – the elk, wolves, lynx and even bears that roamed Britain 10,000 years ago at the end of the Pleistocene era.
It sounds extreme but some of Britain’s most respected wildlife and conservation organisations, including the National Trust, are buying into the idea.
This week the People’s Trust for Endangered Species, which already supports the reintroduction of beaver to Scotland, will suggest northern Britain could support about 450 lynx.
Early next year Natural England, the government’s conservation watchdog, will ask its board to consider making rewilding part of its formal policy for protecting our natural heritage.
“Rewilding is an idea whose time has come,” said Keith Kirby, a woodland and forestry officer for Natural England. “For a long time conservation has been fighting a rearguard battle, simply trying to save species threatened with extinction and reduce the damage caused by humans. Now we need to look at things more holistically, preserving and recreating entire landscapes and habitats.”
Such ideas may sound attractive – but they raise many questions, especially in a country as crowded as Britain. Will the public really accept sharing the countryside with potentially dangerous mammals?
Some of the answers may be emerging from Alladale, a 23,000-acre estate in Sutherland, northern Scotland, where Paul Lister is creating what he hopes will become one of Europe’s best wildlife reserves.
Lister, a multi-millionaire, has already released wild boar on to the estate and earlier this year imported two young European elk from Sweden to found what he hopes will become a breeding herd. In coming years, he wants to reintroduce beavers, wolves, lynx and brown bears.
Lister has found himself facing powerful opposition. Farmers worry that his animals will escape; ramblers fear they will be blocked from Alladale’s footpaths or attacked by wild animals. It shows that in Britain we may profess a love of wildlife – but the idea of dealing with a real wilderness is highly controversial.
“The Highlands are considered one of Europe’s last great areas of wilderness, yet much of the flora and fauna that once thrived here has been driven to extinction by the activities of man,” said Lister.
Even the beautiful mountain-scapes of northern and western Britain are unnatural, a result of ancient forest clearances. Bears disappeared 900 years ago; lynx died out in medieval times; and the last wolf was shot in Scotland in 1743.
The inspiration for rewilding comes largely from America, where in one scheme wolves have been reintroduced to Yellowstone national park. However, the much larger open spaces of the US mean animals can roam without coming across humans.
A more comparable example lies in the Netherlands. Oost-vaardersplassen is a 14,000-acre tract of uninhabited fen, scrub woodland and wild grassland that was reclaimed from the sea just 40 years ago and set aside for wildlife. The reserve offers Europe the best glimpse of the Pleistocene it might wish for, with ancient breeds such as Heck cattle and Konik horses already living there and plans to introduce European bison.
In Britain, private landowners have been keenest to adopt such ideas. In West Sussex, the 3,500-acre Knepp castle estate, owned by Sir Charles Burrell, has abandoned modern farming methods and removed nearly all the fences to allow Old English Longhorn cattle, Exmoor ponies, Tamworth pigs and fallow deer to roam at will through the spreading undergrowth.
Conservation bodies were a little slower climbing aboard but the National Trust, Britain’s largest landowner, is adopting the same “let nature take its course” approach. At Ennerdale it is working to replace sheep with hardy cattle, remove exotic trees and push for a switch to organic farming, while in Cambridgeshire it is trying to recreate ancient wetlands around Wicken fen.
The one thing played down in most of these schemes, however, is any mention of the reintroduction of wild animals, especially large predators.
The experience of people around the Forest of Dean in Gloucestershire shows why. They have been pestered by growing numbers of wild boar, whose population has grown rapidly after a handful of animals were released into the wild. Some churned up the turf of a football club’s pitch, others attacked passing horse riders, and one had to be shot after its visits to a primary school became aggressive. The Forestry Commission last week announced that it had sent rangers from the area to Germany, where there is greater experience of dealing with boar.
Concerns about similar problems have affected Britain’s most ambitious rewilding project, the release early next year of four families of beavers into the countryside in Knapdale forest, mid-Argyll.
Beavers were once common throughout Britain but were exterminated for their fur and because their dams and tree-cutting make woodlands awkward for humans. For rewilders, they are an important species – their engineering opens up woodlands, creating glades and encouraging the growth of fruit-bearing bushes needed by other creatures. If they survive in Britain’s woodlands, then eventually many other species might follow.
It has taken 10 years to persuade the Scottish executive and local people to accept the idea of beavers being introduced – and most rewilders are understandably cautious about talk of wolves. Some, however, cannot restrain their enthusiasm.
David MacDonald, director of the wildlife conservation research unit at Oxford University, said: “The reintroduction means we could see beavers impacting woodland ecology for the first time in 400 years. It is very exciting to think of the other species for which they could pave the way.”
This week the People’s Trust for Endangered Species will publish a report by MacDonald showing that Scotland could support a population of 450 lynx, a medium-sized cat that preys on small mammals and deer, in northern and central Scotland. The prospect of lynx roaming wild is far less frightening than it may sound. Such creatures seldom cause problems for humans.
For true rewilders, the real aim is to restore all lost species – including dangerous ones. Peter Taylor, a founder of the Wildland Network, which campaigns for the reintroduction of larger creatures, said: “The most wild experience available for a human becomes the unarmed walk into territory where humans are not only not in control, but also not the top predator. That frisson of risk and vulnerability marks the transition from a tame landscape to a truly wild one.”
With leading organisations backing rewilding, that may not be as wild a prospect as it seems.
Elizabeth John, New Straits Times 27 Dec 08;
Running out of resources, choking on pollution and plagued by economic woes — time to rethink priorities and reconsider what really makes the world go round? The executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme, Achim Steiner, tells ELIZABETH JOHN that the time has come
Q: Could you tell us the significance of the recent international meeting in Putrajaya
A: We have a world full of biodiversity studies but in 2008 we are still confronted with unprecedented loss of biodiversity across the world.
We are losing ecosystems. We are facing the prospect of a collapse of fisheries in the oceans.
We have to scale up the capacity of governments to combat these trends.
This meeting discussed how we could strengthen the impact of science on policies of biodiversity and ecosystem management.
The idea here is to create something similar to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but for biodiversity.
The panel brought together all the science, peer reviewed it and it helped develop policy relevant findings that governments could use, giving them options to respond.
That is the debate in Putrajaya now. Will this kind of panel also be a good way to strengthen our ability to deal with the biodiversity and eco-system crises we are facing.
Q: What would you say to developing countries about this initiative, especially those that might see this attempt to link biodiversity to policy issues as a way to curtail development?
A: Biodiversity and ecosystems are essential to the economy and livelihoods of people in developing countries. In some cases more essential than they are to people in developed nations.
If you go to any farmer or fisherman who is observing environmental change and feeling its impact on his ability to harvest and use nature then very quickly that issue becomes secondary.
In 2008, we have to recognise that the loss of biodiversity globally and locally is beginning to take on dimensions that are no longer acceptable.
We are undermining the capacity of our own ecosystems to sustain not only current populations but also the billions more who will live on this planet in the future.
That is why we look at this discussion here as an attempt to bring both the developed and developing country perspectives together to say:
Let science inform the debate rather than politics and ideology.
Q: Although the climate change science came from a single, independent scientific authority, there were many questions and doubts. Wouldn't this system be faced with similar challenges?
A: Despite all these economic arguments, national interests and political positions on climate change, the power of rigorous science made it possible to convince the public about the nature and scale of the climate change challenge.
In turn, they empowered their politicians to act in a way that would have been unthinkable five years ago.
Because the public says things are serious, because they believe in the scientific evidence that is being presented to them, they ask the political leaders what they are doing about it?
And suddenly politicians are able to move and take actions that they didn't dare to before.
The direction we are heading in this 21st century is towards a low carbon, less polluting and more recycling economy.
Those that rely heavily on a 20th century industrialisation model will have to invest a lot more on transformation.
Those who come out with new products, processes and innovations stand to gain a lot more from this transformation.
Q: Will the developing world be able to move from oil dependence to a greener economy?
A: It's the same debate in a developed country as it is in a developing country.
If you listen to people who build cars today, who run steel mills and coal fired power stations, they'll say: We're going to lose jobs, we can't do this.
The same arguments are happening in Washington, Berlin and London as they are in Kuala Lumpur, New Delhi and Beijing.
Secondly, are developing countries going to invest their future in the old economy or the new economy?
Q: Could a country like Malaysia make that change?
A: Malaysia is already a knowledge economy. Why would it not take advantage of what is now quite clearly emerging as a global market opportunity -- renewable energy and recycling.
The winners in the future global marketplace will be the resource efficient, innovative, energy efficient product.
A country that does not invest domestically in promoting that transition will not have products, patents or research and development giving it a competitive advantage.
So it will buy the factories of yesterday and continue producing at a lower premium what others no longer want to produce.
China and India already do this -- if you want to take the developing country argument.
Suzlon and Suntech are companies that are both less than 10 years old.
They are dominators in the global marketplace today.
(India-born Suzlon is Asia's largest wind power company. Chinese owned Suntech is a leading global solar energy company)
Germany has just made the single largest investment in Mexico to produce photovoltaic panels there.
That investment could come to Malaysia too but not if there isn't a domestic market that supports that.
Q: But that's the thing isn't it? The whole economy, all the infrastructure isn't designed to support any of this, is it?
A: That can change.
The idea here is that government shouldn't do all of it but the market, investors, entrepreneurs have to believe that the government is committed to a long term transformational path.
Then they will mobilize their intellectual property, their capital and their corporate resources for this purpose.
Q: I'm sure many developing countries will be looking at this Green Economy Initiative and thinking that once again, they'll be starting from behind. It's going to involve a lot of technology we don't have and that's going to create a bit of fear, isn't it?
A: Because you are five years behind, will you stay that way forever? Or will you catch up?
If you take a company like Suntech, which is the world's largest producer of PV panels, its founder Dr Shi Zhengrong, was a lecturer in Australia up to eight years ago.
Then he came back to China and started this company.
So there is nothing to prevent entrepreneurs with government support in countries like Malaysia which already have that highly developed infrastructure, well trained human resources, vast experience in public policy, supported technology innovation programmes, to say: why don't we get into this?
If you're not part of this today, you are much less likely to be part of it tomorrow.
Now if India and China can do it, is there a reason why Malaysia cannot do it?
Q: Where's the motivation when you are an exporter of oil? What's the motivation for a country like Malaysia?
A: Responsible inter-generational leadership.
Oil will run out one day. This is what England is finding out right now, what Norway will find out, what Dubai and others have already factored into their development.
So how do you diversify your economy from what is in essence a lottery win - which is that you have found oil and gas and that has given a tremendous boost to your economy.
Rather than spending all that money, Malaysia is already making choices in terms of investing it in human resource development, infrastructure development.
These are benefits accruing not only to the current generation but future generations so in a sense it is a strategic choice.
Do you believe that this transition to a green economy is an opportunity to innovate, to access new markets and generate new jobs?
If you do, then you have a rational to invest in them.
Q: What help is there for countries that might want to make the transition but don't know how?
A: This is one of the problems. There is not enough.
For poor developing countries, making these quantum leaps are very difficult.
If you are a country like Kenya today , where the UNEP is headquartered, if you were to chose to jump one generation of energy production and move straight into solar energy or thermal power, initially the equipment you're buying off the shelf is more expensive.
And therefore every kilowatt hour of electricity is more expensive.
So I will suggest that the climate change convention and the financial mechanism that we have, be made available should a country want to buy down the difference between going on a path of high fossil fuels or more renewable energy.
If you can buy the difference down and bring that country forward by 20 years -- like South Africa that shifted from coal to more solar and wind -- why shouldn't the international community pay for that. It is in its own interest from a climate point of view and it is in the interest of helping a developing nation.
As the executive-director of UNEP it is very disconcerting for me to observe a world that can mobilise thousands of billions of dollars overnight for a financial crisis but is incapable of committing 100 billion dollars a year in additional financing to help the world achieve a scenario where global warming will stabilise.
But this is the challenge we face -- to bring the environmental imperative to act on the economic rationale of investment.
Q: What has the reception to the New Green Economy plan been like?
A: We have been overwhelmed by the interest and the extent to which this discussion has been going on all over the world.
We've seen initiatives in Korea, Britain and Costa Rica suddenly being driven under this concept.
We've seen (US president-elect) Barack Obama and the secretary-general of the United Nations taking on this subject.
The response has been tremendous also because of the fear that the money we're spending on the short term financial crisis must also be used on longer term challenges.
There is of course going to be a counter-reaction. The old economy or the economy that has very little interest in this transformation is going to raise objections.
They will say: We have the jobs and now you are going to put your money into all these phantom jobs?
That is why we are working on very hard empirical research with the International Labour Organisation, trade unions and employer federations, to put together our first jobs report.
We want to show where green jobs are being created, why are they being created and what is the potential for future growth.
Q: What impact will falling oil prices have on this plan to invest in a greener economy?
A: Well if you believe that climate change and global warming is a hoax then you should celebrate that oil is only US$60 per barrel.
If you even believe half of what we know is going to happen in the next 60-80 years, your first reaction should be: what a tremendous opportunity this is.
We were able to operate in our economy when oil was $100 per barrel, now its $60, let's use this $30-$40 dollars we have gained and invest it in a more diversified, cleaner-fuel economy instead of going back to putting our foot on the pedal and driving our cars faster.
The original assumption was that at $60 or $70 a barrel, solar and wind energy technology become perfectly competitive.
Now what did we see the big energy companies do?
They sold off their solar and wind energy businesses and as the Arctic was melting, began dreaming of drilling for oil there. This is not rational.
Q: Why is not rational?
A: Because it is a short term interest that accrues to a few people who are mortgaging the future of the next generation.
Can you explain to me, to my son and my grandsons why an oil company should today make billions in net profit which is two-thirds more than what we would need to spend as a global community on shifting away from global warming?
It's not as if oil companies are drilling in a more beautiful or intelligent or cleaner way. It's the same oil, from the same oil wells, in the same market.
And these companies can, in a sense, privatise a profit that we as a community, if we could use some of that, could finance the transition to a cleaner energy economy.
This disconnect in the marketplace versus the social and public goals of our economic development path need to be narrowed.
We need to step back from the virtual economy that allows a company to be worth $25 million dollars one evening and $5 million the next morning. That's not the real economy.
The real economy is rooted in assets including the environmental assets we hold.
One of the interesting transformations we'll see in the next century is that our economic choices will be defined by our natural capital rather than our financial capital.
Because these are real assets and if we lose them, we cannot afford to replace them with something artificial.
Q: Sure, but there are very immediate concerns a government has to address -- from keeping prices down to securing votes.
A: Well that's not new. That will always be the dilemma of a politician.
But we expect too much from our politicians. It actually comes down to you and me.
If we are well informed citizens, will we give our politicians the license to raid our larder or the license to use our profit to build a more sustainable future economic development path?
The politicians will act accordingly.
I think that is part of democracy. That is part of the public debate that happens.
That's why we at the UNEP belief that the debate about renewable energy, these are the debates we have to take to the public.
Because it is there that people form the opinions that then drive the political agenda and responses.
There will always be those who don't give a damn but as a society I don't think that is a prevailing notion
Q: What would be the cost of not taking this seriously? What would be the cost of leaving biodiversity out of the equation?
A: In the long term it's devastating. I'll give you some examples.
In the year 2008, we've actually reached a situation where we are depleting our fisheries stocks so fast that in our generation we may end up with no more global fisheries in our oceans.
The Millenium Ecosystem Assessment looked at 24 ecosystems goods and services and found that in the beginning of the 20th century reached a level where 60 percent of these are either used at maximum level or depleted.
With six billion people now and eight or nine billion people in the next 30-50 years, surely these trends are unsustainable.
We are producing in agriculture worldwide food crops that have already led to over 30 per cent of our arable soils being depleted and having lost their productive quality.
It will cost some more than others. The poor will be at the frontline of paying the price for land degredation, desertification, loss of wildlife and wild plants that they use for medicinal purposes.
Economies will lose tremendously because they will increasingly have to compensate for what is lost, with money and infrastructure.
And as we run out of alternatives to grab something from somewhere else we will suddenly realise the value of that biodiversity we lost.
Posts
visitors since Nov 07