wild places | wild happenings | wild news
make a difference for our wild places

home | links | search the site
  all articles latest | past | articles by topics | search wildnews
wild news on wildsingapore
  Today Online 3 Apr 07
Save energy, go the eco-friendly way
Reply from BCA and NParks

Today Online 20 Mar 07
Let this little red dot be green
Letters to Today

Today Online 19 Mar 07
The clock is ticking fast and Singapore needs a voice
Timing is right for the little red dot to go green in a big way
P N Balji Editorial Director balji@mediacorp.com.sg

WITH the kind of ideological clarity and intellectual unity being shown by most of the world's politicians, businessmen and scientists on a single topic, the time has come for Singapore to play a bigger role in the world debate on the environment, both locally and internationally.

The way climate has been playing havoc with the lives of millions of people in the world topped the list of global concerns at the recent World Economic Forum at Davos.

The serious threat, especially the link between the release of greenhouse gases and human activity, on planet Earth is now clear to the scientific community, whose Fourth Assessment was released earlier this year by the world panel of experts.

The politicians have started hugging green, too. In Australia, England, Germany and San Francisco, the sometimes jingoistic embrace of The Next Big Issue makes it difficult to differentiate the colours of competing politicians.

And businessmen are seeing money in fuel-efficient cars, solar power and bio fuels and in branding their companies as those with a corporate mission to save the Earth.

With US$1.28 billion ($1.95 billion) in venture capital being pumped into clean technology — although this is a small drop in the US$34-billion ocean of total venture capital outlay — the economic interest can only grow.

Where do all these put Singapore, an establishment that takes pride in positioning itself as a trend-spotter, not just a trend-chaser?

One of the concrete steps Singapore has taken is where it is most vulnerable: Reclaimed land. Such land is designed to be a consistent 125cm above sea level, about two times the worst-case scenario identified by world experts.

A two-year study on better understanding the new climate menace to the planet and a public consultation to come out with a national strategy are in the works.

Despite such moves, climate change is hardly in the national consciousness. Two reasons might explain this apathy.

One, Singapore is too small a country in size and voice to play a role because its carbon emissions, compared to those released by bigger culprits such as the United States, China and India, are puny.

Two, this whole climate debate is like chasing the colours of the rainbow, with still no irrefutable evidence of the effect the melting of ice caps has on sunlight, the release of greenhouse gases has on global warming — and, eventually, the link with the dismay and destruction caused to human lives through hurricanes, haze and other natural disasters.

On both counts, there is a need for a rethink.

Our short history has enough examples of Singapore playing a role bigger than its size. Mr S Rajaratnam's leading voice in the international community warning that communist Vietnam would create a domino effect on the rest of South-east Asia to Professor Tommy Koh's leadership of the Law of the Sea conference are just two examples.

And this country has never been coy about peering into the crystal ball and coming up with a winner before others could see one.

So, what should Singapore do? First, we should relook the role of our custodian of the environment, the National Environment Agency (NEA). Today, its portfolio extends to mosquitoes, flies, rats, littering and hawker food. Of the five press releases it sent out this year, not one was on the environment. Three were on dengue and mosquitoes, one on hawkers and the last on litter.

The time has come for the NEA to be a truly National Environment Agency and not a Nearly Everything Agency. The other roles, which are essentially of a public health nature, can be hived off to be dealt with by another new agency under the Ministry of Environment and Water Resources.

The environment agency should be given two roles, one local and the other international. With Germany pushing Europe to take on a leadership role in the climate campaign, this might be an opportunity for Singapore to be part of what Nobel laureate Joseph E Stiglitz calls a "coalition of the willing".

It could, as the professor of economics at Columbia University says, persuade countries to stop building coal-fired plants, increase fuel efficiency of motor vehicles and provide assistance to developing countries to improve energy efficiency and cut emissions.

A lot of hot air? With the western world in the mood to act and politicians looking to rekindle voters with a new manifesto, the timing may just be right.

Locally, the NEA should come up with a clear strategy to save our environment by tapping on the young — especially those who have come back from studying and working overseas — with a cool, hip and committed view on rubbish disposal, plastics and trees.

This growing group is now so disparate that they disappear into the woodwork once they return to Singapore because there is nothing to motivate or pressure them to remain committed to going green.

Timing is everything these days. With the clock ticking fast, Singapore needs to start projecting a higher profile now on this Mission to Save The Earth.

Today Online 20 Mar 07
Let this little red dot be green
Letters to Today

Stop wastage of resources, chopping down of old trees
Letter from tan meng lee

While P N Balji ("The clock is ticking fast and Singapore needs a voice", March 19) makes a case for environmental consciousness, I wonder about our wanton waste of finite resources.

Take the case of relatively young buildings for instance, that end up facing the wrecker's ball as the laws permit them to be put up for collective/en bloc sale.

In District 9, there is an 11-year-old apartment block called Saint Thomas View that is currently being demolished. There was another smallish apartment block on Killiney Road that went crumbling down when it was perhaps seven years old.

As things stand, almost any building could technically be subject to collective/en bloc sale from Day 1 of the issuance of the Temporary Occupation Permit (TOP). Wouldn't it make more sense to bar such sales for, say, the first 30 years from the time the TOP is issued?

This Act facilitating collective/en bloc sales has unwittingly created a senseless contradiction. We harp on Asian values, of which frugality is one. Yet this piece of legislation fosters wanton wastage as gleaming marble floors of less than 10 years go under the wrecker's ball.

There is another, related issue that galls me. After accidentally chopping down centuries-old trees here and there, developers have learned about "heritage trees". In the garden compound of the old C K Tang bungalow and workshop at 33 Saint Thomas Walk--since razed for the upcoming Saint Thomas Suites condo--there is a majestic old tree which the developer may not keep as its plans to build a water feature/driveway there.

However, there is a roadside stand of figs which the developer claims is a heritage tree and wants to protect from a road-widening exercise. Somewhat facetious, isn't it?

It would be wonderful if both trees are saved but there is a strange development taking place. Floodlights have been installed to shine on these trees from 7pm to 7am, thus depriving the neighbourhood birds of their roosting spots.

There is, as a result, a much-reduced cacophony of bird tweets and chirps in the morning these days.

As part of the building permit requirements, can't the National Parks Board mandate that spotlighting/floodlighting of trees in condos be limited--say, from 7pm to 11pm? It would conserve energy, let nature take its course and allow condo residents to enjoy the ambient lighting in the evening.

Likewise, it is great that the Buildings and Construction Authority will be launching a Green-Mark Scheme for buildings but shouldn't it go further by grading it as "Green A, B or C"?

It is pointless to harp about energy conservation when all these new condos have impressive but energy-hungry water features and floodlighting of trees because it makes them more saleable.

It would make sense for buildings of a certain area consuming a certain amount of water and electricity to be categorised as Green B or C buildings based purely on their standard building features.

Singapore Power could levy scaled-up tariffs for the more wasteful buildings. This would meaningfully translate the implications of BCA's Green-Mark Scheme and give real substance to this whole exercise.

Compelling reasons to have strong environmental focus
Letter from chandra m thanabalan

I wish to applaud P N Balji's article. There are compelling reasons for Singapore to establish a strong environmental movement.

The current population is touching five million. This, associated with our land mass and closely-knit media capabilities, means that environmental propaganda could easily be spread. The fact that we are a tiny nation should be sufficient motivation to establish a proper system of recycling and cutting down of fuel emissions of vehicles.

Secondly, the word debate should be replaced with action. The National Environment Agency must see that the problems they are chasing can be addressed essentially by taking care of the environment.

The people who return to Singapore from overseas may instinctively bring their do-gooder mentality here. It is just a matter of encouraging this to play out on the ground.

Rein in CO2 emissions
Letter from ramchand ramesh

As part of the drive for a greener Singapore, we need to rein in C02 emissions. Today, vehicle owners have to pay road tax that is based on cubic capacity of the engine. So, a car with a 1600cc engine has a lower road tax than, say, a car with a 2500cc engine.

While the engine size could be a metric to measure emission levels, we totally ignore the fact that newer cars introduce more innovations in engine management, tuning, fuel injection and bring greater fuel efficiencies.

Would it not be better to directly peg road tax to the C02 emissions of vehicles?

Today Online 3 Apr 07
Save energy, go the eco-friendly way
NParks, BCA aiming for sustainable environment all round
Letter from Tan Tian Chong Director, Technology Development Division Building and Construction Authority (BCA) and Sim Cheng Hai Director, Policy & Planning National Parks Board (NParks)

WE REFER to the letter, "Let this little red dot be green" (March 20), and thank the writer for his feedback.

The floodlighting of trees mentioned by the writer is on private land. NParks has conveyed the feedback for the developer's consideration and will continue to work with developers to retain trees where possible. For example, that developer is working with the relevant agencies to conserve the ficus tree near the mentioned development.

The Green Mark for Building Scheme is BCA's main initiative to promote environmental sustainability in buildings. Launched in January 2005, this is an integral part of BCA's effort to shape a safe, high quality, sustainable and friendly built environment.

The scheme encourages the adoption of optimal design and various green building technologies to improve building performance and environmental friendliness.

The BCA Green Mark is awarded to buildings that satisfy four key areas of environmental performance: Energy efficiency, water efficiency, indoor environmental quality, and conservation of resources and materials.

The scheme uses a points system to determine if a building is "green". Depending on the points scored, each building may be certified a "green building" with different levels--Green Mark Platinum, Goldplus, Gold or Certified.

Platinum projects can achieve more than 30 per cent energy savings; certified projects, at least 10 per cent. For example, a building with the minimum Green Mark certification should consume 10 per cent less energy than if it were designed to meet the building code requirements without providing green features.

The following are some green features in residential development that can help to save energy and water: Building orientation, provision of sun-shading, design for natural ventilation, energy efficient appliances, water-efficient fittings and rainwater harvesting.

Visit www.greenmark.sg for more information on green buildings.
links
Related articles on Singapore: general environmental issues
about the site | email ria
  News articles are reproduced for non-profit educational purposes.
 

website©ria tan 2003 www.wildsingapore.com