the neo earth

I’ve never been a fan of cemeteries, in fact, I would very much like to be cremated by alkaline hydrolysis and then have my remains dispersed into the sea.

To be honest, I never knew that Bukit Brown was known as Bukit Brown, I’ve always thought it to be the Lornie Road Cemetery. That said, I knew the place existed, and is also rife with traditional Chinese cultural activities that I may or may not agree with. Proof? An old article by the Straits Times on cars parked along Lornie Road during the Chinese “Qing Ming” festival of tomb sweeping, where Chinese pay their respects to their ancestors with a visit to the tombs. Perhaps the internet is now flooded by articles about Bukit Brown, so much so that cars parking alongside Lornie Road is no longer of importance, or that Google has failed on me – I can’t find that article!

If you’ve asked me just over a year ago if the damages done by the plans to build the highway could be mitigated after it was being built with more tree planting, I would naively say yes. But having learnt the characteristics of carbon sinks, and the different types of tree planting, I would contest such a move. Over the past year, I’ve learnt a lot – the tree you see along the streets are not the same as those found in woodlands (not Woodlands!), and quoting a phrase I learnt at the Biosphere – Mother Nature is very resistant, some species will still remain after everything else falls apart, but we humans may not be there to see it. So yes, go ahead and remove Bukit Brown, but when you’ve done that, do not regret the ecological impact you may have failed to predict.

For now, I need some comments on these posters and decide which is better!

How much of the economy should we sacrifice for the sake of our environment has been a much debated issue for decades now. Governments from all over the world, gather year after year during climate change conferences to discuss the issue of how much of their economy should be sacrificed for a sustainable environment. Yet, not once have they realistically thought about how much of the environment have we been sacrificing for the economy?

You may laugh at the thought, but do you know, that the climate change you experience today is a result of the doings of the past generation? Climate studies focus on a classical period of 30 years, which could mean that what we are experiencing today, is likely a result of a build-up of “sins” of the past 30 years. Yes, go ahead and blame your parents or the you 30 years ago, but bear this in mind, your children and yourself of the future will be casting the same blame on you if you do not take any action now.

In the movie 2012, we saw a world, indifferent towards everything else but preserving the future of mankind – must we wait for such a day before we reconsider our actions? In the movie, our chaotic world calmed after 2 months of violent weather, and all refugees were returned to land where they find a new world awaiting them. Will we be able to do the same if we turn our world upside down?

Our government is constantly going  on about how much it did for our environment, but quizzed further about the exact positive impact it has created, how much it has spent to positively combat climate change, it remains mum, and points to the economic sustainability we have to maintain. What is the use of having so much money in reserves, if we are never going to spend it? Are the figures in the bank better to look at or a better environment we can live comfortably in, more important?

Our obsession with instantaneous wealth has led us to ignore the fact that failing to be green, eventually erodes our wealth. The extra load brought about by the myopic decisions to keep policies less stringent and leave environmental initiatives to the private sector will only amass greater costs in the future. Our hunger to maintain easy economic growth through fancy buildings, cars, and even people i.e. population surge, will only hamper the healthy growth of our people. What makes us economically comfortable does not necessarily make us environmentally so and we eventually have to spend more to maintain that lifestyle.

Recently at an environmental awards ceremony, Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, Vivian Balakrishnan mentioned that young people are more aware about the environment, and are more active proclaiming their causes for the Earth. Yet, in a study done before the General Election, statistics show that the environment ranks among the least important concern of young voting Singaporeans. The same opinion echoes through the audience at a recent forum I attended where grassroots leaders vote for the top concern they want the mayor to address.

Perhaps, there really is an increase of awareness for the environment, but the focus has always been too small to begin with, there just isn’t any impact. Obviously, the pace of our move towards  a greener lifestyle has not been able to match that of nature. Because combating climate change requires more than just plain gimmicky marketing and awards, we are doomed for good if we choose to be obstinate about dollars and cents over common sense.

Photo by Andrew*’s on Flickr

Japan’s energy crisis gave us a number of lessons. It showed us how dependent we can be on energy, and especially so on the much hated nuclear energy. Environmentalists all over the world scream in chorus of the anti-nuke chants as Fukushima Daiichi laid in ruins. But more importantly, the destruction upon the city showed us how much energy we waste on beautifying our cityscapes. The colorful lights that run all over the signboards and buildings, the huge LED panels with music blaring in the background, the spotlights cast upon the magnificent towers  to make them seem even more impressive.

Some time ago, I had the opportunity to meet the permanent secretary of the National Climate Change Secretariat, an agency under the Prime Ministers’ Office. While most participants of the dialog session were interested in how NCCS could help them to help the community, I was more interested in the policies  that would shape the future of our Green economy in the country. I wanted to know the stance that Singapore has on fighting climate change.

I fully agree that we should not let fighting change affect our competitiveness, in fact, I believe we should make it our competitive advantage. What bothers me more about the Kyoto Protocol and COP15 are the complicated formulas that nations have come up with to mitigate their unwillingness to adopt green policies. The figures circling around the “business-as-usual” operations only put the common folk into more confusion.

Big time international policies aside, I also wanted to find out what other motion has the government put forth to clear the puff around us. So at the end of the dialog session when the permanent secretary, Mr. Tan came over to my group and asked if we had any more questions, I jumped to the gun and asked, “Sir, I used to live in Buffalo where the responsibility of being sustainable didn’t just lie in the hands of the people, but also that of the city council. Besides the policies and campaigns to be environmentally friendly, the city breathes sustainability. You don’t get the light pollution we have here, and even street lights turn off in an alternate fashion, traffic lights go into the flashing amber mode, on roads where traffic is not as heavy. Will Singapore consider doing something similar?”. He thought for a moment and replied that it is not possible for Singapore as a city to take similar measures, our buildings have to be lit, our streets have to be lit, and our traffic lights have to be lit. These lightings provide the night scene that we have, as well as safety and security of our streets. To that, I couldn’t fully agree.

Yes it is important that we create a landscape that we can be proud of, but at what cost? Is it so important that as we brighten our streets for the Formula 1 race downtown, we have to further brighten the buildings in the vicinity for them to look good? Are the street and traffic lights being sufficiently utilized? The park behind my house used to operate on a schedule that shuts it off at 12 midnight and comes back on at 5.30am for about an hour or so. Few years after the park was built, the lights were changed to dimmer ones and started operating through the night. I believe the rationale for this move is to allow the park to be used through the night, but seriously, no one does. The dimmer lights were not bright enough to provide the security one will need while walking through the park past 12 midnight, and they are better off taking on the streets in front of my house (the row of houses separates the park and the street). So is this really essential? Aren’t we saving to waste?

Similarly, Mr. Tan mentioned that it is impossible to turn off any traffic light in Singapore. I am sure most Singaporean drivers, especially those who have accustomed to 4-way stops can attest that this is not true. The only exit from my estate on to the main road is a perfect example. The main road outside the estate is one of the most used roads linking 2 towns, and during peak hours, traffic congestion on the main road is a norm. However, off peak traffic couldn’t be more different. Even during the day, stretches of the road can be empty for 10-15 seconds, yet cars are kept waiting for 2 minutes for the lights to change, and I’ve seen on numerous occasions when drivers simply ignore the lights and move out.  Keep in mind that this is the only exit in a fairly large and growing estate with an average of 2-3 cars per household, yet the presence of traffic signals is of no importance at certain times of the day, what about the many under utilized junctions around the island?

Our government is known to introduce campaigns and policies to get the people working on an initiative, but it is high time that the government itself walk the talk. Have our senior civil servants and ministers really walked the grounds to understand the problems? Plainly dismissing suggestions based on numbers from their statistical sheets will do no better good than claiming that a meal at the hawker center costs S$1. “Listen” has become the new buzzword in parliament, and let’s hope it brings about the necessary changes to make Singapore a better place.

Are we far too bright?

After 2 decades of standstill, Singapore finally reached an agreement with Malaysia to reclaim ownership of the land Malaysia’s KTM rail currently runs through. Of course, it wasn’t easy at all for the Singapore government. A price has to be paid, and it comes in the form of 3 parcels of prime land in District 7.

Now, the Nature Society (Singapore) has come up with a proposal to preserve the entire 38 kilometers of land to be vacated by KTM stretching from District 25 to District 2 as a “Nature Corridor” as they call it. Seriously, does any part of the proposal sound feasible at all? These are the kind of proposals which puts businesses off the idea of committing to climate change. And without the support of businesses and governments, environmentalists will simply exist to rot in caves.

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with preservation. Yet, it is downright selfish to sacrifice overall growth for something materialistic to these “Tree Huggers”. You may say I am out of my mind to call environmentalists materialistic, but just take a look at the statistics and you will know what I mean.

Singapore as an island state has one of the densest population on this planet. Ranked third in terms of population density at 7,022.81 persons/sq km, Singaporeans live in a tight compound. With the limited land space available, the government has been constantly reclaiming land from the sea. Thus, for the enjoyment of a number of individuals, we have to spend more, and waste more of our precious resources. What we will be doing if we were to carry out the proposal to preserve the stretch is, shifting the responsibility of land preservation to marine preservation. The end result? Everyone loses. Foregoing a 38 kilometers stretch of land entirely then – almost the entire length of Singapore, did not strike well with property developers. No sooner than the intention was made known, developers have already started denouncing the idea.

What should we do then to preserve nature in this urban build-up? In my opinion, integrating future developments with the nature should be the way forward. Imagine being able to wake up in the morning to birds chirping and an assortment of plants surround you. It definitely relives the “Kampung” days for the older generation who lived in villages surrounded by the wild. The way forward is to take a slice of our history and develop it to suit our future needs. A great example of this integrated development can be found just in the vicinity of the railway at a development known as Treehouse @ Chestnut. A prime condominium by leading developer City Developments Limited (CDL), it adopted the Biomimicry concept that adopts nature’s best to solve human’s problems – truly a development that is all deserving of the Platinum Greenmark Award.

So you see, it is possible to develop a future with nature preservation in mind. But to make it possible, we must work hand in hand.

As I woke up drowsily from a lack of sleep this morning, and I took my usual piss in the bathroom, an idea suddenly struck me. You see, I was reading an article on Peak phosphorous update. The article mentioned of how the world supply of phosphate has peaked and supply is dropping. It also mentioned how most of these phosphate went into our waterways to pollute it with algae growth which eventually ends up in the oceans (affecting our marine life).

Phosphorous is a key element to plant growth. However, it also causes algae growth and soil erosion. Phosphor assists plants to convert nitrogen and other chemicals, together with sunlight into food. Without Phosphate, the plant’s growth will be stunted.

So where are we supposed to find all these phosphate to feed the plants to provide us with the oxygen that we need and jump start the food cycle? The answer lies with in your urine.  98% of Nitrogen, 68% of Phosphor, and 85% of potassium can be recovered from urine. Am I hearing the plants say Yum!? Yet, we are not gonna go around pissing into the bushes or start conserving our urine in bottles to pour them into the soil after that. Everyone will start going – YUCK!

Here is where the ingenious idea will come in! Link the urinals from the men’s bathroom all the way to where the plants are! And because there’s no sunlight between the walls, pipes and the underground, algae will not grow! On top of it, dual purposes are served when you flush the urinals – clean urinals and watered plants! Say goodbye to stinking waterless urinals that simply do not work!