Thursday, August 14, 2008
Watch and reflect. Nuff said.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
The quarterly IT fairs in Singapore have come again. Its time again for Singaporeans to splurge their hard earned money in exchange for prized electronic possessions. Yet, while we go through this short but sweet spending frenzy, it would be wise to stop a while and think about our environmental impact during these IT fairs.No no. I'm not encouraging everyone to avoid buying stuff (I myself am going to get a new printer and a digicam probably) but think about the positive things you could do to make this period less environmentally damaging.
Here are some things I think would be interesting to note.
1. Flyers
The IT fairs have tonnes of them. Do we really need them? No.... there are always helpful (albeit poorly paid) sales personnel who are able to assist us in our purchases. And whats more, do you actually read all the flyers they give out? Most of them end up strewn on the floor at the end of the day, and its practically a heap of rubbish every night during closing (I've experienced it before)
When someone gives you a flyer, don't be afraid to refuse it, especially if you have no use for the damned thing. If you really have to take it, do remember that Suntec has many conveniently placed paper recycling bins. Toss them there and not on the floor like some inconsiderate mothafucka (yay, always wanted to say that).
2. Printer Inks!
Everyone loves printers at IT fairs. They're so cheap to get at IT shows that its almost a complete waste if everyone doesn't go home with one. And what about those printer inks we buy that are equally cheap in that colossal sale? What happens to the old ones that we replace? Well, other than throwing them away, we also have the choice of recycling them.
Out of the four major printer players (Brother, Cannon, Epson, HP, correct me if there are more big printer companies), three of them provide drop off points for used cartridges (Epson didn't seem to have such a practice). So make use of these places to drop off your end of the life cartridges.
One interesting thing i learnt of HP in cartridges, they actually allow users to use third party refills. While they strongly advise against it, they do allow it to be done at the risk of ink and printhead quality. While refills may be of lower quality, it may suit certain users who are cost conscious, plus refills generally are more environmentally friendly. This makes it a plus point for people looking to get a HP printer.
3. Power Savers
As environmentally friendly as the world gets nowadays, companies are forced to add that power saver option to their stuff. Western digital hard drives have a range called Green Power, which is supposedly more energy efficient (Don't get me wrong, I'm not advertising for WD. In fact, I've just done a 1-1 exchange on this hard disk only to find that there's a problem with the exchanged one. VERY ANGRY). When choosing products, look out for these energy saving lovelies. They may mean some savings to your annual electricity bill.
4. Stuff You Just Got & Stuff You Don't Want Anymore
Ok... now you've got all your lovely stuff from the IT fair and you're excitedly tearing away your old ones to replace them. What to do with the old ones? Well, sell them away if they're still good stuff. Or, if nobody wants to buy it, give it away for free. SgFreecycle (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SgFreecycle/) is a great place to give away your things. And if you still can't find anyone to give it to, this thread suggests some alternatives (http://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/showthread.php?t=1565068).
As for those new stuff you got, remember, those packaging it came with can be easily reused or recycled, so don't waste them.
Be a reponsible buyer this PC Show, for the sake of your wellbeing in the future
Sunday, October 21, 2007
I found this little article on a site called GreenFeet. They compared the use of a plastic bag to a paper bag. Interesting are the results of their findings, both the paper and plastic bag are almost equally environmentally unfriendly. Never mind the fact that they're selling reusable bags and thus may have the article biased towards reusable bags, its still some pretty good points they've brought up. Read on...---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You step up to the register, the cashier asks if you've found everything ok and then the inevitable question is asked: "Will it be paper or plastic?"
What decision did you make? Was it an informed choice? Was it the best ecological choice? Well, to answer that, we need to start at the beginning and review each option and its impact on the environment.
The Origin of Paper Bags:
Paper comes from trees - and lots of them. The logging industry is huge and the process to get that paper bag to the grocery store is long and environmentally taxing. First, the trees are found, marked and felled. Machinery is then used to remove the logs from the forest floor- whether it by logging trucks or, in more remote areas, helicopters.
Machinery requires fossil fuel and roads (which destroys habitat) thereby creating stress on the forests' inhabitants (Even logging a small area has a large impact on the entire ecological chain in surrounding areas).
Trees must dry at least three years before they can be used. Machinery is used to strip the bark, which is then chipped into one-inch squares and cooked under tremendous heat and pressure. This wood stew is then "digested" with a limestone and sulphurous acid for eight hours. The steam and moisture is vented to the outside atmosphere, and the original wood becomes pulp. It takes approximately three tons of wood chips to make one ton of pulp.
The pulp is then washed and bleached, both stages requiring thousands of gallons of clean water. Coloring is added to more water, and is then combined in a ratio of 1 part pulp to 400 parts water to make paper. The pulp/water mixture is dumped into a web of bronze wires, the water showers through, leaving the pulp, which, in turn, is rolled into paper.
Whew! And that's just to make the paper. We must include all of the chemicals, electricity, and fossil fuels used in the shipment of this raw material and in the production and shipment of a finished paper bag.
Where does a paper bag end its useful life?
Paper, when thrown away, can either be recycled or end up in the landfill. If it ends up in the landfill, over time (and usually many,many years) it will break down. If it ends up in the recycling center, the following process occurs:
First the paper must be returned to pulp. This is done by the use of several different chemicals including sodium hydroxide, hydrogen peroxide, and sodium silicate. These chemicals bleach and spread out the pulp fibers. These fibers are then run through cleaning and screening sequences that remove any contaminants. The pulp must then be washed with clean water to remove ink particles that were removed from the paper by the chemical process.
Flotation is a common method to remove ink. The pulp is submerged in clean water and heated. The ink attaches to air bubbles, which must then be removed before they break and let the ink float back to the pulp.
Most recycling centers treat the water they use to remove contaminants. Screens and mechanical cleaners are the typical methods used. Another, more environmentally friendly method is called 'sludge handling'. Sludge is composed of water, inks, pigments and small particles of waste. The materials are separated and cleaned. By including this process, it reduces any waste that may have to be taken to the landfill. These waste materials can be used in bricks, fertilizers and other useful products.
Other uses for paper bags:
If well packed a single grocery size paper bag can hold the same volume of up to 4 plastic bags. Reuse them as trash can liners and for craft projects. They also make great weed barriers and eventually break down and naturally compost.
It is also important to note that paper bags can be composted (provided they don't have a lot of printing on them). You can throw them straight into the compost pile, or fill with yard waste. Simply pitch the whole bag, green waste and all, into the compost pile.
Where does that plastic bag come from?
Plastic is a petroleum product - it comes from oil. As we all know, the oil industry is no small potatoes and is the cause of worldwide financial and political turmoil.
Traps of oil are located around the planet. Once a trap is located, a hole is drilled and a pipe is rammed into the oil deposit. The oil is forced to the top of the surface due to both the pressure inside the chamber and the weight of the earth above. Once a pump is in place, the whole operation is fairly simple and little oil is lost. The pumped oil is either piped or trucked to a refining facility where plastic is made.
Plastic is a by-product of oil refining and accounts for 4% of the worlds total oil production. It is a 'biogeochemical' manipulation of certain properties of oil, into polymers. Plastic polymers are manufactured into five main types; plastic bags are made from polyethylene. Polyethylene, as a raw material, can be manipulated into any shape, size, form or color. It is watertight and can be made UV resistant. Anything can be printed on it and it can be reused.
For the most part, the whole process of making plastic bags requires only electricity (minus the large, fuel burning heavy machinery required to acquire the oil). The electricity used in the actual production and manufacturing of plastic bags comes from coal fire power plants, which, it is interesting to note, 50% of that electricity is generated from the burning of old tires (made from rubber which is essentially, plastic).
Where does plastic go when thrown away?
Like paper, plastic bags can end up in two places: the landfill or the recycling center. If a plastic bag ends up in a landfill, it will stay intact for thousands of years. Plastic does not compost. With plastic products in the mix, garbage does not have a chance to break down over time. Landfills are considered airtight, which explains why after 20 years you can find a hot dog that is still fully intact and a newspaper with articles clearly legible.
Plastic is fabulous in that it is recyclable. All you have to do is basically re-melt and re-form. The re-melting process also sterilizes the plastic thus allowing any recycled plastic to be made into hospital grade products. Plastic can be recycled many times before it becomes brittle - then it can be made into something as functional as a mousepad or a doormat. Please note that not all plastic bags can be recycled and many stores that collect them, simply send them to the landfill for lack of another alternative.
Plastic's Impact:
Plastic impacts the environment two ways. The first is through the use of electricity during manufacturing. More than half of the electricity needed to make plastic bags is generated by nuclear fission. Nuclear energy has its arguments (that's a whole other issue) that it doesn't directly harm the environment. The main drawback is the disposal of radioactive waste. So far this has been done in deep underground caves or in deep sea trenches where the nuclear waste is sub-ducted into the earths mantle and incinerated.
Plastic not being recycled can be burned yielding from 10,000 to 20,000 btu per pound (60% of which can be recovered) creating electricity. This can reduce the overall sulphur emissions from coal.
The burning of plastics has its cons. Inks and additives found in plastic can create dioxins when burned as well as emit heavy metals. The ash itself is toxic and needs to be disposed of in toxic waste dumps. And then, does this use justify the continued use of limited natural resources?
Plastic also impacts the environment through landfills. Plastic does not break down - your yogurt container will always be there. And biodegradable plastic is really non-existent. What happens here is that wood fibers are mixed with plastic fibers. When the bag is disposed of, the wood fibers break down leaving millions of tiny plastic pieces to mix in the earth.
An argument can be made that plastic decreases landfill mass. Plastics as a whole make up 18% of waste by volume and 7% by weight (plastic bags themselves are light and take up very little space). If plastic were to be replaced by other materials, trash weight would increase by 150%, packaging would weigh 300% more and energy consumed by the industry would increase by 100%.
Plastic has other benefits. Reduction in aircraft weight saves an average of 10,000 gallons of fuel per plane, per annum, the world over. Since 1970, plastic has been responsible for doubling automobile fuel economy.
Conclusion:
Both paper and plastic bags consume large amounts of natural resources and the majority will eventually end up in the landfill. Both bags can be recycled to some extent and can be utilized around the house. We've read several studies comparing the two choices and none of them agree. Some feel plastic is the better overall choice, others paper. It's really tough to say. Paper may consume more resources to produce, however, it is also more recyclable than plastic if you include the fact that paper can be composted and plastic bags cannot.
In our opinion, neither one is the winner. The best choice overall, is a reusable bag. They're made from renewable resources, take minimal energy, are light, durable (each holds up to 40 lbs) and last for years. Some can be machine-washed and are great to keep in the trunk of the car. Use them at the beach, farmers market and, of course, supermarket. Plus, many supermarkets will give you up to 5 cents per bag credit. Typically, a bag will pay for itself in a year and a half if you buy groceries once a week. We have, just this week, heard rumblings that in some countries, supermarkets are beginning to charge customers for every bag at checkout. If this practice makes its way to the U.S., then string bags are an even smarter financial choice.
Taking all the above information into consideration, feel confident that you are making an informed decision the next time you're at the supermarket. The most important thing to remember is to utilize every possible use for both the plastic and paper bags to lengthen their life and minimize the impact on both the environment and our natural resources.Monday, October 15, 2007
Most of us may have heard the news.Al Gore's definitely not the next U.S. president, but he did win this year's Nobel Peace Prize, along with the IPCC for their contributions in the global warming awareness field. Good for them then. Finally the issue that has been bugging every environmentally-conscious person on the planet has achieved another level of higher awareness.
Down back in Singapore however, life still seems to go on as usual. Sure, maybe a few more would have been nudged to awareness of "this environment thingy" that got Al Gore the Peace Prize. My aunt, for example, suddenly wanted to find a book about "that movie he made"(An Inconvenient Truth). Overall, I'd rate the impact somewhere between 0.0 to 0.1 on the Richter Scale, or not felt at all.
Singaporeans seemingly, are still not very aware about the global warming issue. Either that or they just simply don't care at all. The other day I passed by Mcdonalds and got myself a Fillet O Fish (mmm... yummy.... oops, off topic). Well, since it was just a little burger, I didn't feel the need to get a plastic bag and asked the service crew to skip that little transparent wrapper. Interestingly enough the lady gave me a shocked look, like not taking that plastic bag was akin to not washing my hands after going to the toilet. So much for McDonalds's environmental efforts.
That itself isn't the only dismaying part. Nowadays the supermarkets all offer reusable shopping bags. Useful they may be, they're often just placed next to the checkout counter where little attention is paid to it (except maybe for the monthly BYOB day where plastic bags are shunned for their price per bag). Occasionally someone from the queue picks up a bag while checking out their items. Poof. There goes the bag into the plastic bag of groceries. Hardly do I see cashiers making an effort to transfer the groceries in the plastic bags into the reusable bags. What's more amazing is how some people bring along a reusable storage bag only to put in the plastic bags of groceries into the reusable bag. What then is the purpose of the reusable bag? Is it simply a bigger bag to consolidate the smaller bags?
Then again, not all is bad. Recently I found out about this little yahoo group called Freecycle. Its an online reuse website where people post the stuff that they don't want up and someone else offers to take it. Pretty good start to a more reuse-friendly nation. Never mind that it is cluttered with more "Wanted" posts than "Offer" posts, at least its a good start I might reckon.
Seems NEA is releasing a energy efficiency masterplan soon also, a great time to try to kickstart things. Why is it a great time? Well, simply because its not too late to try.
Beyond the Nobel Peace Prize, how will Singapore emerge to be in the future? One more environmentally friendly? That certainly has a visible possibility, and hopefully that possibility
will become more concrete in the near future.
(Yay, finally another post to add to my dead blog. Anyone like my new skin?)
Friday, May 25, 2007
Finally, a post for my dead blog. Topic today: Who's to Blame?Now, I believe many "greenies" around the world has heard of this when they go around on their awareness programmes, people pushing the blame to others. In a simple blame game, everyone pushes the blame to the older generation, condemning them to eternal damnation for causing global warming.
But are they really to blame? And who's the REAL culprit here.
Lets go back in time shall we? Back in time to the 1800's, the birth of modern day global warming- the Industrial Revolution. The industrial revolution brought about many new interesting sources of global warming. With steam power, new stuff could be invented; cars, industries, power plants, the list is probably endless. And with new inventions comes one thing, inefficiency. We all know that, new products are bound to have some problems that come with them. Pollution, the evil word.
For the first time in human history, man has been able to mass produce everything; cars, buses, toys, tools etc. And who can actually forget mass producing CO2, our favourite greenhouse gas.
Ahh... so here we have it... 1800's to the 21st century, a good 200 over years of non-stop carbon dioxide madness, sufficient enough to change the carbon dioxide concentration in the air to an alarming level.
And so.... the blame game starts. Whooooo's to blame? ITS DEFINITELY THE OLDER GENERATION, says many of us. However, are they as bad as we say them to be? Or would you say, there's someone else worst? My verdict- WE ARE WAY WORST.
And then you go silent. Me? Worst than them? How could it possibly be? I refuse to admit it! I did not cause the problems of global warming. I did not make the earth out to be what it is today. I was born only a few years ago. I, I, I, I this, I that, I did, I did not. WHATEVER!
From a global point of view, its really messy to point fingers, so we shall close down the scope to Singapore only. I see no point in pointing fingers at countries. Settle the internal problem then think of the external one.
Modern Singapore began in the 1960's, almost 50 years of massively increased carbon emissions. Back to our little blame game, who actually contributed all the carbon dioxide?
In the past, Singapore set out to create its economic success, industries were built all over the island to create jobs, manufacturing went all out and there was lots of economic growth. Industries polluted the air with their smog and all that crap. Slowly, as the economy progress, we phased out many of our pollutive industries and there you have it. Modern Singapore, cleaner air, water, land.. there you have it. Our environmental success story, we made Singapore cleaner and greener from what it used to be, we have minimized the problem and therefore the problem was created entirely from the older generation.
There you have it, the answer to the question about who's to be blamed, answered by a tree hugging cauliflower. However, I failed to mention one point, that was from an industrial and government standpoint, we haven't covered the crux of the problem- the average Singaporean.
Now here's the turning point of my argument. Compared to the average Singaporean of the past, who's the more pollutive? Who's causing more damage to the environment now? Is it me, or is it my grandparents?
From my viewpoint of the older days, life was relatively simple, at least for the average Singaporean it truly was. People ate less lavishly for most of them could not afford more than a simple meal. Electricity was available then, but there weren't much stuff to plug into the mains. possessions? Yea, a check with my mother (we won't even bother going as far as my grandmother), the only toys they had were one or two dolls and thats about all. Not that there was nothing to buy but there wasn't any money at all to buy too much "wants", possessions people had were mainly "needs". Heck, even to own a television was a real luxury.
Now lets compare this to the average Singaporean now, we don't even have to go as far as to ask how many cellphones the average Singaporean owns. We bring it down to the level of the past, how many televisions do you own? How many radios do you own? Straight away, we can see this obvious difference. Even without looking, I can safely say, an average Singaporean household has at least two televisions which are in working order and are being used. Radios? Each household at least has a few stashed around the house, be it a hi-fi, tonnes of free gift radios or mp3, walkman's, discmans.
Just basing it on the quantity of our possessions we have already exceeded the amount of carbon emission of any household in the past. EACH item we have in our possession, is a product of raw material and energy, and each product produced will let off some carbon dioxide. It doesn't take an idiot to see who has produced more emissions.
Then the opposition speaker comes on, and they speak of a touchy subject- cars. Now everyone knows cars of the past (well present too) are a major pollution source. Engines of the past were built with low efficiencies, oil was not created to be very efficient either, that certainly would have produced more emissions than the present car. Oil in the past was much cheaper, cars didn't have such a thing as COE and many people would have owned cars. Cars now are more expensive, people don't own that many. And yes, that would have been the equalizer, a 1-1 tie betweeen the present and the past. Oh really.. don't kid me.
Firstly, I must say, judging by the sheer number of cars on the roads nowadays, that not only has car ownership increased, but the number of cars one family owns has indeed increased. And you think about it and you say, hey, but the population has gone up, car ownership is bound to go up. And yes it should, its bound to go up, it can't possibly go down can it?
And, even if we choose to overlook that point. We choose to say hey, population increases and so do cars. Fine, but look at every car on the road nowadays, its getting bigger, bigger and more luxurious. The reality is that people are changing their cars to bigger, more comfortable models. Even without mentioning the fact that nowadays, people to change their cars more frequently (buy more cars, cause more pollution), cars are getting more and more energy hungry, due to the increase in their luxury status, making the car more viable to be an energy hog. And if you compare it to the cars of the past, there you have it, another point put down. the score, 1-0, cars are a no no in this discussion.
Old cars cause more pollution because they are not technologically advanced, new cars cause more pollution due to the fact that more luxury items are being placed into them, making them into a greater energy hog. And I pose you this question, air-conditioning is no doubt a significant part of the car's energy consumption. Would you turn it off to save the energy?
Final argument to put across, when we say, the people of the past are the ones who primarily cause global warming, we are implying that what they did was actually wrong. But what actually did they do wrong? Was it their pollutive industries? Not entirely. Their industries at that time were that pollutive, simply because at that time, that was the best form of technology that they had grasped, environments weren't in the picture when they first designed it. Should these industries have appeared in present day, it definitely would be the one to blame, as there are cleaner alternatives.
And what if they did not do it, just because it would seem environmentally unfriendly to do so. Would we be where we are today? Living in high rise buildings, having heaps of electronic equipment surrounding us, and air-conditioning, sweet sweet air-conditioning. Our current luxury, is due to the fact that someone started this pollutive practices to churn out what would be the foundation of our modern day luxury items. And get this fact right, if you are going to put the blame on these people, you are saying that you do not support what they have done, to get you this far, to get you living in the comforts of an air-conditioned environment.
And if you say that no, you still want to blame them for this predicament that we are in now, for this global environmental crisis, are you willing to abandon what they have achieved as a result of their pollutive methods? Will you say goodbye to your air-conditioned environment? Would you say goodbye to your computer, cellphone and anything connected to that power socket of yours? Would you light candles in the night for lighting?
So before you make a conclusion as to who is to blame, think about who is actually causing more damage now.
Wednesday, April 4, 2007
Hmmm... one of the things showing in tonight's episode is probably the majestic shark. Which brings me to the topic on shark finning, but thats another story for another time.
Cheers
Monday, March 5, 2007
Yea, we all heard it before.. but here's an extract on why you shouldn't.Bear bile has been used in Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) for over 3000 years. It used to aid ailments ranging from fevers to heart disease.
In the 1980s the bear farming industry was set up to farm bears more intensively. Over 7000 bears were found being kept in Chinese bear farms; additional animals were held in Korea and Vietnam .
Originally, bear farming was introduced to reduce the number of bears poached from the wild. However, it is actually feared that bear farming is causing a decline in wild populations in China and across Asia , as the bear farming industry stimulates demand.
Welfare issues
Bears suffer when they are removed from their natural environment. They are often kept in cages that provide insufficient space to allow them to turn around, sit up or even lie down properly.
The extraction of bile is an extremely painful procedure, often carried out by untrained technicians. This causes immense and prolonged suffering to the bears.
Some bears are reported to curl up after the extraction, shivering and holding their paws to their stomach. There are numerous reports of bears twitching, gnashing their teeth, biting bars and uttering distress calls during the extraction process.
Methods of bile extraction
According to the World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA), there are a number of methods used to extract bile from bears. They differ between each country (China, Korea, Vietnam) and even within each country.
China
Catheters: This technique involves the insertion of a stainless steel or latex catheter into the bear‘s gall bladder (like ouch). Originally employed in the mid-1980s, when commercial bear farming in China started, this technique is still widely used despite it now being illegal.
The catheter is inserted through a hole, cut in the bear‘s abdomen, and attached to the gall bladder. The outer end is left to protrude from the bear‘s abdomen by several centimetres.
A variation of this technique involves the end of the catheter being fitted to a detachable plastic bag. The bag is held in place in front of the bear‘s abdomen by a permanent metal harness.
Fistulae or ‘Free Dripping Technique‘: In 1993 the Chinese authorities began to promote the use of new surgical techniques for bile extraction and the abolition of iron corsets. A new catheter-free technique was to replace the old method.
The new technique was reportedly introduced because of high mortality rates associated with the old method. Today it is the only legal method of bile extraction in China . The older methods, however, are still commonly used in bear farms across the country.
The ‘free dripping technique‘ involves the creation of a tissue duct between the gall bladder and the abdominal wall, using parts of the bear‘s inner body lining, known as the mesentery.
Bile is collected by inserting a rod through the fistula towards the gall bladder, which then drains its content. To prevent the fistula from closing up the wound must be constantly re-opened - usually once or twice a day (imagine it if i cut you, then cut you at the same place again and again).
It is suggested that this new technique is in some way more humane than older methods. However, this is far from the case, as we can see from the suffering involved for bears following surgery and years of bile extraction.
Recent Update: New reports from the Animals Asia Foundation (AAF) suggest that farmers are now employing a ‘fake‘ free dripping technique.
Here a clear plastic tube is inserted into the fistula, hidden just inside the body cavity. The tube is virtually invisible even on close inspection.
It is believed the plastic tube makes bile extraction easier and more efficient. Despite the process being illegal under current government regulations, it is believed to be common practice in many bear farms across China.
Vietnam
Hypodermic Syringe: The most common method of bile extraction in Vietnam involves the use of ultrasound equipment to locate the gall bladder.
Once located a long syringe is inserted into the bear‘s abdomen to puncture the gall bladder. The bile is then siphoned off into a collecting jar. Repeated puncturing of the gall bladder can lead to infection with many bears dying of peritonitis.
Surgery: In some cases, bears in Vietnam are subjected to crude surgery in which the gall bladder is accessed and bile extracted.
Unsanitary conditions and poorly trained staff cause painful, infected wounds, following surgery. According to bear farmers in Vietnam, bears rarely survive more than 3 or 4 such procedures.
Korea
In Korea the extraction of bile from live bears is illegal. Instead farmers breed bears and slaughter them in front of their customers to prove the authenticity of the gall bladders (oh my god, but this is more humane than farming them and killing them slowly).
Until recently the legal age at which a farmer could slaughter a bear in Korea was 24 years. As farmed bears rarely live to this age this effectively outlawed the killing of bears in Korea.
In February 2004, the government lowered the legal age of slaughter to 10 years, thereby opening up a much larger supply of bear bile and gall bladders in Korea.
WSPA is lobbying the Korean government to formulate a long-term, strategic plan to phase out bear farming.
Caulibeam