Need to Adapt to More Extreme Weather

For some who froze nearly to death in December, it might be hard to believe but it’s a fact. The year 2010 ranked as the warmest year on record, together with 2005 and 1998, according to the World Meteorological Organization. In 2010, global average temperature was 0.53°C (0.95°F) above the 1961-90 mean. The first ten years of the new millennium was the hottest decade ever, since recordings began in 1880. Consequently, we have a lot about weather and climate this issue. Floods in Australia, Sri Lanka and Brazil are linked to the increasing frequency of extreme weather events, in turn attributed to a warming world and aggravated by the La Nina effect.  With a strong climate change focus, we hear from Will Steffen, Michael Richardson, Chai Tai Soo, Mike Sketekee, Matthew Wright, Tim Hughes, Ed Blakely and George Earl. We even speculate – with the help of World Vision – on what the late Martin Luther King would think of climate change. Sustainability and green business get  a good look in with a GreenWise survey from the UK, and the Wharton School’s insight from the US, then Coca Cola shows it is facing up to corporate social responsibility, particularly through its WWF alliance. South Korea has launched a green credit card scheme and new technology will enhance electric car growth in China. From Singapore, we hear of the importance of water management in Asia and what’s in view for World Water Day (20 March), plus the city state’s first Eco Food Courts and where Envirofriendly is making its presence felt. Warm wishes for a cool change! –  Ken Hickson

Profile: Dr Martin Luther King

If the civil rights leader Dr Martin Luther King was on the scene today, would he have a view on climate change action (or inaction)? Remember, the Nobel Peace Prize winner once said this: “Ultimately a genuine leader is not a searcher of consensus but a moulder of consensus. On some positions cowardice asks the question, is it safe? Expediency asks the question, is it politic? Vanity asks the question, is it popular? But conscience asks the question, is it right? And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but he must take it because conscience tells him it is right.” World Vision brings King into the equation. We also remind readers that we presented a famous quote from King in “The ABC of Carbon” ending with the words: “Over the bleached bones and jumbled residue of numerous civilisations are written the pathetic words: ‘Too late’…” Read more

Here’s a quote from Martin Luther King used in the introduction in Ken Hickson’s book “The ABC of Carbon”:

“We are now faced with the fact that tomorrow is today. We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now. In this unfolding conundrum of life and history there is such a thing as being too late. Procrastination is still the thief of time. Life often leaves us standing bare, naked and dejected with a lost opportunity. The tide in the affairs of men does not remain at the flood; it ebbs. We may cry out desperately for time to pause in her passage, but time is deaf to every plea and rushes on. Over the bleached bones and jumbled residue of numerous civilizations are written the pathetic words: Too late . . .”

Reverend Dr Martin Luther King, Jr (1929–1968)

What would Martin Luther King Jr do about climate change?

By Jarrod McKenna

On ABC religion and ethics (17 January 2011):

The legacy of Martin Luther King Jr and the reality of climate change are both victims of western culture’s remarkable capacity to accommodate and neutralise that which is most critical of it.

Early in the civil rights movement, Bayard Rustin said to King, “I have a feeling that the Lord had laid his hand upon you. And that is a dangerous, dangerous thing.” Similarly, the FBI once described Martin King as the “most dangerous man in America” – and yet, as Martin Luther King Jr day rolls around again in the United States, we are often presented with a figure that seems more like a cheerleader for the status quo rather than a prophetic challenge to it. Somehow, it seems we have made this dangerous figure very safe.

For instance, in a speech at the Pentagon commemorating King’s legacy, the Defense Department’s general counsel Jeh C. Johnson remarked, “I believe that if Dr King were alive today, he would recognize that we live in a complicated world, and that our nation’s military should not and cannot lay down its arms and leave the American people vulnerable to terrorist attack.”

But to claim that Dr King would be pro-war today is as likely as him being pro-segregation. After all, this is the Dr King who said, “A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defence than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.” And this is the same Dr King who said in his speech on 4 April 1967 (a speech that turned three quarters of American public opinion against him), “To me the relationship of the ministry [of Jesus Christ] to the making of peace is so obvious that I sometimes marvel at those who ask me why I’m speaking against the war.” And this is the same Dr King who said, the night before he was murdered on 4 April 1968, “It is no longer a choice, my friends, between violence and nonviolence. It is either nonviolence or nonexistence.”

Princeton University professor Cornel West insists that we “domesticate, disinfect, deodorise, sanitise, and make safe” the prophetic words and witness of King – a process he refers to as the “Santa-Claus-ification of Martin Luther King Jr,” whereby we embrace a manageable, smiling, jolly fellow and abandon the man of history and his passionate call to a liberating love and a healing justice. We do to King, in other words, precisely what we have done to the radically nonviolent Christ of the New Testament.

So how can we take the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr seriously without making him in our own image? How can we, informed by his witness, confront problems he never faced without sanitising or co-opting the voice of the Nobel Peace Prize laureate who described himself as “first and foremost a preacher of the Gospel”? How can we deconstruct the hagiographies of a super-saint or “Santa Claus figure” and truly hear from this exceptional follower of the way of the cross?

Richard Stearns, the President of World Vision United States, offers an extremely helpful model for engaging Dr King ‘s legacy. In his book The Hole in Our Gospel, Stearns bravely confesses how World Vision United States nearly abandoned the call “to defend the poor and the needy” because doing so wasn’t popular. What prevented this disastrous move and encouraged him to be faithful was Stearns’s sense of history and the witness of Martin Luther King. Stearns admits he felt chastened by what King said to the church of his day:

“The contemporary church is a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. So often it is an arch defender of the status quo. Far from being disturbed by the presence of the church, the power structure of the average community is consoled by the church’s silent and often even vocal sanction of things as they are.”

As Stearns writes, “One of the disturbing things about Church history is the Church’s appalling track record of being on the wrong side of the great social issues of the day.” Though he could have been speaking about the issue of climate change, the issue Stearns was dealing with was the AIDS epidemic.

World Vision United States conducted research in the late 90s among evangelical Christians, asking if they would be willing to donate money to help children orphaned by AIDS. The responses they got back were horrifying, and truly damning of the church. Only 3% of evangelical Christians answered they would definitely help, while 52% of evangelical Christians surveyed said they “probably or definitely would not help.” In response Stearns writes:

“When it came to showing compassion to AIDS victims, culture blindness obscured our sins of apathy and judgement, just as it blinded Christians in previous generations to slavery and racism. We see this same exact pattern in God’s people in the Old Testament, condemned by Isaiah and other prophets, and again in the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, which Jesus denounced in the strongest terms. The message should be plain for us to see – history demonstrates that the institutional Church often fails to rise above and challenge the popular culture and values.”

Reflecting on church history, and inspired by the Apostle Paul’s prayer in the opening chapter of the letter to the Ephesians, Stearns suggests that every pastor, church leader, and para-church ministry leader should begin their daily devotions with the following confession:

“My name is __________, and I am blind to the injustices and sins of omission committed by my own church. Open the eyes of my heart, Lord, to see the world as You see it. Let my heart be broken by the things that break your heart. Give me the ability to see through our culture and to lead my people with Your vision, instead of the world’s.”

Now, as a Gen Y who loves and seeks to serve the church, I must confess that my generation has been quick to judge those in the past – racists, segregationists, imperialists, bigots – but slow to connect the dots between the Gospel and issues of water, food, health, economics, poverty and the land. Much like those admittedly sincere white Christians in the 60s for whom civil rights seemed like a “distraction from the Gospel,” Christians today often display disinterest and even fatigue from all the hysteria surrounding climate change.

Many of us find ourselves implicated in the patterns of prevailing culture described by Naomi Oreskes in her brilliant book, Merchants of Doubt. As one of World Vision Australia staff member heard from his mother recently, “Why is World Vision talking about climate change? World Vision works to get children out of poverty. Not save trees!” This reveals two important realities that must not be ignored.

First, many of us fail to see what World Vision Australia sees all too clearly: climate change is hitting the poorest of the poor the hardest. Recently Tim Costello and I were in Chennai with Jayakumar Christian, CEO of World Vision India. Dr Christian told us plainly “we are already seeing the effects of climate change.” Climate change is like a giant anti-development force unleashed on the world, aimed at the poor. This is why Tim Costello has repeatedly said, “climate change will undo sixty years of development if we don’t act now.” It is also why evangelists like Tony Campolo are saying, “You can’t be a Christian and not be an environmentalist.”

Second, this demonstrates just how small and anaemic our understanding of the Gospel has become. When the Gospel is understood as sin management, or as a kind of fire-insurance for the afterlife, or self-help with a religious flavour, then it falls shamefully short of the beauty of the Biblical witness.

What our response to the ecological crisis reveals is how ill equipped our Western imagination is to understand the Gospel as good news for all of creation. Much like in the 60s, the issue was not that the Gospel wasn’t good news for the oppressed seeking racial justice and reconciliation – it’s that too many Christians were blind to see it. They were blind to the reality that the Gospel meant not only personal transformation but social transformation, just as many of us are blind to the Gospel being more than just personal and social, but ecological and cosmological as well.

Polite talk of “creation care” or “stewardship” as a kind of appendix to the Christian faith is completely inadequate. The Gospel is not that Jesus came to redeem individuals. The Gospel is that Jesus came to redeem all of creation by grace, and we as individuals, together, can be a witness to that. Our ecological crisis calls us to rediscover the earth-affirming beauty of the kingdom of God. As Nicolas Berdyaev put it, “The kingdom of God is the transfiguration of the world, universal resurrection, a new heaven and a new earth.” Or, in the words of Karl Barth, the Christian hope is that “we wait for Easter to become a universal reality.”

Climate change, like the church’s complicity with racism, calls us to repent and rediscover the fullness of the Gospel. Guided by the Holy Spirit, we must return to Scripture and reconnect what should never be separated: the doctrine of the incarnation, the cross, the resurrection and the kingdom are always connected to the doctrine of God’s good creation. To care about the poor is to care about climate change. To care about climate change is to care about the poor. And the Gospel of Jesus Christ, when seen in all its redemptive splendour and beauty, is good news to both!

The year prior to his assassination, Martin Luther King was asked by a reporter whether he was going to hurt the budget of his organisation by the stance he had taken on the issue of war: “Aren’t you hurting the civil rights movement and people who once respected you because you are involved in this controversial issue?” As he related to audiences later, Martin Luther King said that he looked at that reporter and, with deep understanding and no bitterness in his heart, said:

“I’m sorry sir, but you don’t know me. I’m not a consensus leader. I don’t determine what is right and wrong looking at the budget of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. Nor do I determine what is right and wrong by taking a Gallup poll of the majority opinion.”

King would go onto say:

“Ultimately a genuine leader is not a searcher of consensus but a moulder of consensus. On some positions cowardice asks the question, is it safe? Expediency asks the question, is it politic? Vanity asks the question, is it popular? But conscience asks the question, is it right? And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but he must take it because conscience tells him it is right.”

Dr King would write from Birmingham Jail that, regarding civil rights, “The judgement of God is upon the church as never before.” Today I believe those words are just as applicable to the church regarding climate change and how it affects the poor. To stand with the poor and take real action on climate change might not be safe, nor politic, nor popular. But the dangerous witness of Martin Luther King Jr calls us to dare to go the way of the cross, because, in the words of Dr King, conscience tells us it is right.

Jarrod McKenna the National Adviser for Youth, Faith and Activism for World Vision Australia. He is the founder of EPYC and co-founder of the Peace Tree Intentional Community in Perth.

Source: www.abc.net.au

Too Much Climate & Too Many Cars for China?

Tim Hughes heard about Australia devastating floods while in China and noted that the world’s largest country  – now the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases  – is seriously worried about its climate, pollution, water supplies and also its international reputation. Meanwhile, Singaporean-Australian businessman William Tien is helping write the next chapter of automotive history, with his silicon battery technology mirroring the way companies assemble computers in China for sale globally.

John Mangan in The Age (16 January 2011):

FROM an unassuming office in South Melbourne, Singaporean-Australian businessman William Tien plans to help write the next chapter of automotive history.

After a century of hopes and promises, electric cars are set finally to establish themselves as realistic alternatives to petrol-burning vehicles, and Mr Tien’s Alpha company has licensed a unique silicon-based battery technology for a Chinese-built car, the Lujo.

Australians bought 1,035,574 motor vehicles last year, – up 10.5 per cent, or 98,246 vehicles, compared with 2009.

Mr Tien, whose background is in financial services and information technology, wants a modest slice of that action. He has three Lujos scheduled to undergo Australian compliance testing at the end of February. After that, he says, the car will go on sale for less than $25,000.

It will certainly be a cheap alternative compared with other electric vehicles, including the I-MiEV by industry leader Mitsubishi, which became available last year on lease plans that cost more than $60,000. Mitsubishi has 110 cars on the road in Australia at the moment and expects to double that number this year.

Prefer a supercar? The American 212km/h Tesla Roadster went on sale here last week for $206,000. Nissan also has an electric car, the Leaf, due for release this year. EDay, a new Australian company, plans to have a $10,000 Chinese-built car with a top speed of 80km/h on the road by the middle of the year.

Blade Electronic Vehicles, based in Castlemaine, has been pulling the insides out of small Hyundais and inserting its own electric motors and batteries for four years. Founder Ross Blade and his team have sold 35 Blade Electrons to a mixture of government and private customers, and have a new model scheduled for this year, the Blade Runner, a two-seater that doubles the range from about 100 kilometres to about 200 kilometres.

An Electron costs about $45,000, or $32,000 if you lease the batteries. The new Blade Runner will cost $55,000 or $32,000 with leased batteries.

While Mr Tien promises his Chinese-built cars will be price-competitive with similarly sized conventional vehicles, Mr Blade joins established manufacturers in lamenting a lack of government support for the technology: ”Every other developed country on the planet is encouraging development of electric vehicles by offering substantial subsidies.”

Andrew McKellar, the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries chief, says there is ”a legitimate role for some sort of time-limited consumer incentive” for low-emission vehicles, including electric cars.

He supports a ”cleaner-car rebate” the federal government has proposed, arguing that it should particularly target low-emission cars. ”The proposed rebate would be for $2000, which is probably on the skinny side,” he says.

Skinny indeed. Low-emission cars in France get a $6680 subsidy. US electric cars qualify for a sales tax deduction of up to $7600. Japanese cars receive a large subsidy, based on the price difference between the electric car and its nearest petrol equivalent.

After price, ”range anxiety” is the greatest issue for potential electric car owners, as recharging a battery can take eight hours.

ABC science pundit and New Inventors judge Bernie Hobbs, who bought her Blade Electron IV six months ago, is a satisfied customer. ”As a science broadcaster I’ve been banging on about the environment for the best part of 10 years. I couldn’t bear the thought of buying another petrol car.”

Her electric car drives, she says, like a small automatic. ”If you usually drive more than 100 kilometres a day, forget it. My car is not for you. But I’m usually driving, at most, 50 kilometres. You plug it in overnight, charge it up at the off-peak rate on 100 per cent green power. It’s no inconvenience until your girlfriend forgets to plug it in overnight!”

Mitsubishi corporate communications head Lenore Fletcher says ”fast chargers” that restore half a battery’s power in 15 minutes will be rolled out in South Australia this year.

”That’s going to be a whole different ball game,” she says. ”We’ll see them popping up in shopping centres and workplaces.” As for price, Ms Fletcher says the technology may well develop like other consumer electronics. ”Look at plasma TVs. Ten years ago they cost $20,000. Now you can get one for under $800.”

Mr Tien is also inspired by the consumer electronics revolution. His buying of car bodies used for a Chinese petrol-engine car and inserting of his company’s battery technology mirrors the way companies assemble computers in China for sale globally.

The inventor-businessman is excited about expanding into the vehicle industry. ”I love cars and I’m interested in anything that’s green.’

Source: www.theage.com.au

China powers ahead to cut carbon emissions by 2020

Tim Hughes in the Courier-Mail (17 January 2011):

WE have had a terrible reminder of just how disastrous weather events can be. I watched the events of last week from China, where I was attending an investment conference.

While the two might appear to be quite disconnected events, in fact I sat through four days of presentations where climate change, energy efficiency targets and reduced carbon emissions were mentioned in every single session.

What science is telling us is the frequency and severity of extreme climate events will increase as the planet warms.

China is now the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases and it is seriously worried. Worried about its climate, pollution, water supplies and also it’s international reputation.

Without waiting for the rest of the world, it has voluntarily adopted a target to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide produced per unit of GDP by 2020, by 40 to 45 per cent from 2005 levels.

But it is a demanding target and will require some very major changes in energy use in China. It is also likely to have profound impacts for Australia.

Over the past five years China has already reduced its emissions per unit of GDP by around 15 per cent. But the easy gains from closing down terribly inefficient old power stations and the like have already been had.

The new five-year plan has not yet been finalised but is expected to seek a targeted further 15 to 20 per cent improvement in carbon efficiency.

The problem is that China, like us, it is very much a coal dependent economy.

Despite having the world’s fastest growing wind, hydro and nuclear programs, none of these can be expected to significantly help China meet its target.

Rather, the most likely solution to China’s carbon problem is lying in deep coal beds in central Queensland and off WA’s North-West Shelf natural gas.

Per unit of electricity generated, gas produces roughly half the carbon dioxide of coal.

That said, the magnitude of China’s challenge is, if it was to meet its target by switching to gas, there is not enough readily available to do it.

The good news for Australia and for Queensland is, while we dominate China’s coking coal imports, we only export a relatively small amount of thermal coal to China. But when it comes to gas, we have projects in spades ready to go.

Last week’s go-ahead from Santos, following on from BG’s Curtis project, is probably just a taste of things to come.

From what I heard in Beijing, the Shell/PetroChina project cannot be far behind.

Already Gladstone is on its way to becoming an energy superpower, primarily driven by a world becoming concerned about climate risk.

Tim Hughes is a director of Value Capital Management.timvcm@bigpond.net.au

Source: www.couriermail.com.au

Prestigious Waterfront Homes Now in No-Go Zones

Some areas of Queensland are so flood-prone they should never have been built on and should be declared no-go zones, according to an international disaster expert, Professor Ed Blakely, who says extreme weather events are becoming increasingly more frequent and far more devastating. While  the Institute for Sustainable Development’s Professor George Earl says the flooding disaster underlines the need for adequate infrastructure to deal with the effects of climate change. “Areas which were prestigious in previous generations now are those very properties which are at most risk because of climate change and rising tidal waters”.

Karen Kissane in The Age (15 January 2011):

SOME areas of Queensland are so flood-prone they should never have been built on and should be declared no-go zones, with residents bought out and moved out, according to an international disaster expert.

”We shouldn’t regard this [flood] as freakish,” said Professor Ed Blakely, who ran the recovery of New Orleans after hurricane Katrina and was involved in New York’s after 9/11. ”We should assume they are going to occur because of climate change. They are becoming increasingly frequent and far more devastating.”

He warned it was also time to examine the need for Queenslanders to ”retreat from the coast” to escape rising sea levels. ”It will take 60-75 years, so we have got to start now,” he said. ”It’s very important for us to see not just this incident but the long-term trend and learn from it and plan for it.”

Professor Blakely said he had warned a conference of a flood like the current one: ”I warned people in Brisbane before hurricane Katrina that this could happen. I had all the CSIRO data that showed a flood that looked very much like the flood that happened. They scoffed.”

Professor Blakely, nick-named ”the master of disaster”, is professor of urban policy at Sydney University.

Queensland authorities have for some time been examining the state’s future under climate change, with the CSIRO predicting an increased intensity of extreme rainfall events such as the current floods.

A global rise in weather-related disasters such as the Queensland floods was confirmed by Andrew Glikson, an earth and paleoclimate scientist with the Australian National University.

”Cyclones have increased twofold over the past 20 years. Floods have increased threefold,” he said.

He said climate scientists were careful never to point to a single event as evidence of climate change but to examine medium and long-term trends. ”It’s happening now, and it’s happening faster than some of the climate-change scientists have dared to predict,” he said.

Chief executive of the Queensland Local Government Association, Greg Hallam, agreed many people were living in areas that should not have been settled. ”There are councils that certainly would like to remove housing but can’t. It’s such an expensive business, beyond councils’ means.

”Councils don’t build on flood plains now, but where people have got a use right, that’s a legal right to build. Councils can’t stop them. The state has to legislate to take away people’s planning permits, or the Commonwealth has to fund [a buyback]. I think this epoch event will raise all sorts of issues about how we do all sorts of things.”

Given the rising sea levels forecast under climate change, a retreat from Queensland’s coastline was the best thing to do ”because we can’t afford to defend every inch of the coast”, said Catherine Lovelock, professor of biological science at the University of Queensland and a contributor to that state’s Climate Adaptation Initiative.

She said engineering defences such as sea walls and levees were expensive and not always successful. ”If you can’t defend a suburb or town, logically you would say that you should let them go.

”Planned withdrawal is one idea but it has to be thought through very, very carefully …

”Which government is going to stick their neck out and say, ‘I’m sorry, all of you in Graceville, you are going to have to walk away from your properties that are worth around $300,000 each?”’

Source: www.theage.com.au

By Charmaine Kane for ABC (17 January 2011):

An economist on Queensland’s Gold Coast says the Brisbane floods have highlighted the challenges that can confront waterfront property owners.

Riverfront homes were among the thousands of properties inundated in south-east Queensland last week.

Around 180 real estate professionals from around the world are discussing the impact of climate change on property developments at a conference at Bond University this week.

The director of the Institute for Sustainable Development at Bond University, Professor George Earl, says the disaster underlines the need for adequate infrastructure to deal with the effects of climate change.

“Areas which were prestigious in previous generations now are those very properties which are at most risk because of climate change and rising tidal waters etc,” he said.

“I don’t think they will become less desirable or even less valuable – I think what it will do is heighten the emphasis on sustainable infrastructure.

“There are some areas which have gone under in the last few days up in Brisbane which are quite OK to be built on.

“It is just that in fact we have to understand the infrastructure that’s needed not to protect just them, but the city in general has to be upgraded.

“We have to do more significant work in terms of understanding the issues of climate change on real estate.”

However, he says last week’s floods will not cause long-term damage to Brisbane property values.

Professor Earl says the damage will not make south-east Queensland any less desirable to home-buyers or dramatically reduce prices.

“In the short-term, it will probably stagnate them and probably make them go back somewhat,” he said.

“But I think that as we start handling better the issues of climate change and real estate and urban planning, Brisbane and the Gold Coast will still be beautiful places to live.

Source: www.abc.net.au

End the Blame Game and Work Together on Solutions

A binding global climate treaty might be a long way off but what is needed is less finger-pointing and more readiness to cooperate in ensuring that effective action is taken. So says Singapore Ambassador at large and climate change negotiator Chew Tai Soo: “Technology is available for developing countries to achieve sustainable economic development. Less pollutive means of power generation are possible today with renewable energy and nuclear power, especially if financing and technology transfer from developed countries are made available.”

By Chew Tai Soo, For The Straits Times (14 January 2011):

Despite few renewable energy alternatives, Singapore is showing its green commitment by pledging to reduce its emissions by 16 per cent by 2020.

At a chance meeting recently with some friends from academia and non-governmental organisations, I was quizzed on aspects relating to climate change negotiations when they discovered I had participated at the recent conference in Cancun.

The discussion revealed much misunderstanding over climate change issues, centring on the role of developed and developing countries and the latter’s right to development.

Climate change and global warming are pressing problems for all countries. The reversal of global warming can come about only through international cooperation involving emission reductions by all – and this regrettably has proven difficult to achieve.

There is an economic cost to curbing emissions. Developing countries point inevitably to their pressing need for growth and a better life for their people.

And while the European Union, Japan and other developed countries have, since 1997, taken the lead in reducing their emissions under the Kyoto Protocol, these same countries are unwilling to take on new commitments without the United States and large developing countries doing the same.

The US, meanwhile, has taken the position that it will not take on binding legal commitments unless the major developing countries, such as India and China, do likewise.

That a binding global treaty is still a long way off does not bode well for the environment. What is needed is less finger-pointing and more readiness to cooperate in ensuring that effective action is taken.

This will require developed countries to accept their ‘historical responsibilities’ and to ‘take the lead in combating climate change and the adverse effects thereof’. Developing countries, on their part, should undertake commitments in accordance with the principle of ‘their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities’. The battle cannot be joined without the effort of all countries.

Do China and India and other developing countries have the right to development? The short answer is: Yes.

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change recognises the ‘legitimate priority needs of developing countries for the achievement of sustainable economic growth and the eradication of poverty’. Furthermore, the developing world can do this without repeating the excesses of the West in its own industrial development, leading to the substantial concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Technology is available for developing countries to achieve sustainable economic development. Less pollutive means of power generation are possible today with renewable energy and nuclear power, especially if financing and technology transfer from developed countries are made available, as called for in the Convention.

The blame game among the different countries has made progress in this area elusive. One recurrent issue is that developed countries, having exported dirty industries to developing ones in the first instance, are now asking the latter to reduce the resultant pollution from such investments.

On their part, developed countries are quick to stress that the strict environmental laws in the West make for more costly production of materials, such as cement, and the absence of such laws in developing countries works like a magnet in the relocation of pollutive industries.

To stop the haemorrhaging of jobs, developed countries have proposed a border tax on exports from developing countries that do not meet international environmental standards. However, such tax measures will have other negative consequences on many developing countries.

Some large developing countries have proposed the idea of ‘equitable access to carbon space’ based on per capita emissions – in other words, their right to increase their per capita emissions to comparable levels attained by developed countries. This approach is not viable as it would lead to an exponential increase of carbon in the atmosphere.

Let me end with a few words about Singapore, as it has been apparent that our unique circumstances have not been fully appreciated. We are a city state with no hinterland. Our economic success and high per capita gross domestic product tend to obscure our limitations as a small country.

Singapore emits only 0.2 per cent of the global total of carbon dioxide. Even if it were possible to stop all carbon emissions here, it would not make a difference if others do nothing. Our small population and physical size make comparisons of Singapore and its emissions on a per capita basis with other countries potentially unfair.

It might be better to compare ourselves to cities such as Tokyo or London. And yet such a comparison would not be justifiable either. Unlike London, for example, which has been able to move its industries to other parts of Britain, we are limited by our 700-odd sq km of land. An even more severe limitation is that we have very few options in pursuing renewable energy sources.

Singapore is what the Convention recognises as an alternative energy disadvantaged country, dependent on fossil fuels. In our efforts to mitigate global warming, our smallness determines much of what we can do.

Despite our unique circumstances, Singapore has pledged to reduce its emissions by 16 per cent below business as usual by 2020, contingent on a legally binding agreement in which all countries implement their commitments in good faith. This is a tough target for Singapore and there will be economic and social costs to pay. But it shows our seriousness in joining the global fight against global warming.

To succeed in reducing global warming, all countries, both developed and developing, have to make a contribution.

The writer, an Ambassador-at-Large for Singapore, is the country’s former chief negotiator for climate change.

Source: www.admpreview.straitstimes.com

Green with Envy: Korean Credit Card Reward for a Low Carbon Lifestyle

There’s a new Government led program in South Korea that offers “green credits” for consumers who embrace a low-carbon lifestyle. Credit cards have become more than a purchasing tool in South Korea, offering discounts on movies or food and freebies. Now energy consumption incentives are added to that list. All part of a drive to reduce the country’s greenhouse gas emissions by 30% from projected levels by 2020.

By Ju-min Park for Reuters (11 January 2011):

Kim Yong-sook is an idealist who longs for a greener lifestyle, which means walking more and wasting less. But she never dreamed that her credit card could help save the planet.

The 59-year-old stay-at-home mother is one of many set to take advantage of a new program in South Korea that will offer “green credits” for consumers who embrace a low-carbon lifestyle. Credit cards have become more than a purchasing tool in South Korea, offering discounts on movies or food and freebies. Now a new government program will add energy consumption incentives to that list.

Indeed, according to a new 2011 policy plan announced by the Ministry of Environment, buying eco-friendly products or living green in ways such as taking public transit by using a so-called green credit card, will be good both for the environment and your wallet. The credits can be redeemed for cash or be used to lower utility bills.

“Accumulating green credits does not sound bothersome at all,” said Kim.

The combination of credit and green consumerism, the ministry said, is part of a drive to reduce the country’s greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent from projected levels by 2020.

“You can earn bonus points in daily life when you buy a carbon-less labeling detergent or collect used batteries,” said Hwang Suk-tae, a senior official at the Climate Change Cooperation division at the ministry.

Just saying no to a paper cup at coffee shops can add to carbon points, as the government terms them, which then can turn into cash rebates.

“We have a chance to change the current mantra that living green is tough to achieve,” said Hong Sung-pyo, head of the Korea Green Purchasing Network.

He added that the official government Ministry campaign to craft a new spending method for green living had high prospects for success, instead of private companies that may regard this as a marketing opportunity.

Others had mixed feelings about the plan.

MIXED FEELINGS

“I am not sure how big this green credit card project will grown, and some can criticize this for encouraging spending,” said Choi Ye-yong, director at the Asian Citizen’s Center for Environment and Health, Korea Federation for Environmental Movements.

“I also think that the more incentives become available, the more people will join. But it may provide momentum to induce us to take action.”

The national government is not the only one getting into the act.

Seoul is launching an eco-mileage credit card this month, allowing participants to get discount coupons toward the purchase of hybrid cars and eco-friendly appliances in return for conserving electricity and water, with both Samsung Electronics and Hyundai Motor also taking part.

Ms Kim, the housewife, is planning to sign up for a green credit card when it is available, hoping to help make her pursuit of a greener life a reality.

“I hope this will not end up being just one of the government’s verbal campaigns, because it is hard to live green and spend at the same time,” she said, adding that she worried the card could actually damage the environment by encouraging consumption.

Source: www.reuters.com

One in 20 Year Events as Climate Shifts with Rising Sea Temperatures 

There’s a growing risk that events of this type (floods in Australia, Brazil and Sri Lanka) will become more frequent as the climate warms, says Prof Will Steffen says. What were one-in-100-year events would become a one-in-20 or one-in-30-year event as the climate shifts. While Michael Richardson points out that the worldwide warming trend increases the likelihood of extreme weather events such as heat waves, droughts and floods. In addition to being the hottest year ever, last year was also the wettest on record. A hotter world causes more evaporation from land and oceans. A warmer atmosphere holds and releases more water, which can mean more violent storms and bigger floods.

NZ Herald (13 January 2011):

Experts blame a combination of a La Nina weather pattern and global warming for the magnitude of the Queensland flood disaster.

One scientist warns the catastrophe is only the start of things to come, saying what are described now as one-in-100-year floods could arrive every 20 years.

The La Nina effect, the inverse of the drought-inducing El Nino effect, results in higher than average sea temperatures in the Pacific Ocean leading to heavy rain.

Professor Will Steffen, executive director of the Australian National University’s (ANU) Climate Change Institute, says it is likely the floods are climate change related.

“What we can say about the Queensland floods is there is a strong La Nina, which tends to give this heavy rainfall, but in addition to that there are very high sea surface temperatures.”

Professor Matthew England, joint director of the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of NSW, says the temperatures are the highest ever recorded.

Rising sea temperatures, especially in northern Australia, are a key part of the climate system, says Prof England.

“Climate change has seen a warming of waters globally, and the waters north of Australia are an important part of the climate system for Australia’s monsoon rains.

“They are at their warmest ever measured and we cannot exclude climate change from contributing to this warmth, (and) if it is very warm there this enhances evaporation into the atmosphere, creating moist air.”

Prof Steffen agrees the temperature rise is a climate change phenomenon.

Sea temperatures have been rising for years, he says.

He cites a study in the US that looks at rainfall in a heavily saturated area over the past 100 years.

“(In the study) there’s been a significant increase (in rain in the area) since 1980 consistent with a strong warming,” Prof Steffen says.

The study shows the the effects of warming will make flooding of the type that has devastated parts of Queensland more common.

“There’s definitely a risk and a growing risk that events of this type will become more frequent as the climate warms,” Prof Steffen says.

“One-in-100-year events would become a one-in-20 or one-in-30-year event as the climate shifts … we say with some confidence they are becoming more frequent and they will become more frequent in future.”

Prof England says that climate change projections point to extreme weather becoming more common, but it is hard to know how much flooding Australia could get.

“Climate change projections are pointing to more frequent extreme events, that’s to say more flooding events, more droughts and fires, but whether Australia as a nation sees many more flooding events or not is still a little bit more complex to pin down,” he says.

But not all experts agree that global warming is a factor.

Environmental science Professor Neville Nicholls from Monash University believes the Queensland floods are not due to climate change but purely a result of La Nina.

“The main reason we’re seeing this heavy rain is just this incredibly strong La Nina, and that’s almost certainly a natural part of climate variability,” he says.

Prof Nicholls says the evidence is inconclusive about the effect of global warming on the La Nina phenomenon.

“The question is, is it exacerbated by climate change or global warming? At the moment, we just can’t say. No one has done the studies yet,” he says.

“You would have to think the warming we’ve seen – about half a degree in the last 30 or 40 years – should have had some influence on this event, but we can’t tell you reliably or credibly what that influence is.”

Source: www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news

Michael Richardson for the Straits Times (17 January 2011):

GENERATIONS of Australians have learnt that their island-continent is a land of alternating droughts and floods. Recent prolonged rain and devastating flooding across north-eastern Australia, particularly in the state of Queensland, have underscored this heartbreaking cycle.

Weather experts have said the immediate cause is natural, attributing it to periodic fluctuations in the sea surface temperature of the central Pacific Ocean along the equator and in the air pressure of the atmosphere above.

Known as the El Nino-Southern Oscillation (Enso), it affects weather patterns in many parts of the Pacific, including Australia and South-east Asia.

Enso has two extreme phases in its typical see-saw every three to eight years. One, El Nino, is associated with hotter-than-normal temperatures and diminished rainfall. The other, La Nina, usually brings above-average wet weather and lower temperatures.

The Australian government’s Bureau of Meteorology said earlier this month that the La Nina phase bringing the deluge to north-eastern Australia was the strongest since at least the mid-1970s. As a result, the country had its third wettest year on record last year.

Indonesia’s Meteorological Office reported last week that rain across the far-flung island-nation would continue until June. It said the dry season, which normally starts in April and lasts until October, would start only in July.

Meanwhile, Brazil and Sri Lanka have been hit by unusually heavy and damaging downpours, just as northern Europe and much of the United States felt the bite of abnormally frigid winter weather.

Despite these bursts of wet and cold weather, two leading US climate agencies said last Wednesday that the average land and sea surface temperature last year tied with 2005 as the warmest on record, since data collection started in 1880. The global temperature was 0.62 deg C above the 20th-century average.

Attributed by many scientists to the growing release of carbon dioxide, methane and other global warming gases from human activity into the atmo-sphere, this temperature rise is happening at the same time as the natural Enso cycle.

Dr James Hansen, director of one of the US climate agencies, said the average global temperature in the past decade increased as fast as during the previous two decades, despite year-to-year fluctuations associated with Enso.

A summary on the state of the Australian climate published last year by the Meteorological Bureau and the CSIRO, Australia’s leading scientific research organisation, said that in the past 50 years, the mean temperature in Australia had risen by about 0.7 deg C and was projected to increase further, by 0.6 to 1.5 deg C, by 2030.

It added that if global greenhouse gas emissions continued to grow at business-as-usual rates, the country could be 2.2 to 5 deg C hotter by 2070.

Scientists said the worldwide warming trend increases the likelihood of extreme weather events such as heat waves, droughts and floods. In addition to being the hottest year ever, last year was also the wettest on record.

A hotter world causes more evaporation from land and oceans. A warmer atmosphere holds and releases more water, which can mean more violent storms and bigger floods.

The equatorial expanse of the Pacific Ocean, which is far larger than the Indian and Atlantic oceans, is critical to the development of Enso.

During La Nina, trade winds blowing towards the west bring moist air to northern Australia and Indonesia. Heated by the tropical sun and warm water, the air rises to create towering bulbous clouds and heavy rainfall.

The question that must concern South-east Asia is whether man-made global warming from burning fossil fuels and clearing forests is intensifying natural weather patterns like Enso and, if so, how?

It is clear that if an exceptionally dry El Nino phase occurs against the backdrop of long-term man-made global warming, one will make the other even hotter. This happened in Indonesia in 1997 and 1998 during the Asian financial crisis, when forest fires spread haze pollution across South-east Asia.

Some scientists also think there is a link between the rising global sea temperature and the strength of Enso cycles.

The annual climate statement by the Australian Meteorological Bureau, issued on Jan 5, noted that sea surface temperatures in the Australian region last year were the warmest on record, 0.54 deg C above the 1961 to 1990 average. The past decade was also the warmest on record for sea surface temperatures.

The statement added that ‘very warm sea surface temperatures contri-buted to the record rainfall and very high humidity across eastern Australia during winter and spring’.

Echoing the scientific panel advising the United Nations on climate change, the Meteorological Bureau-CSIRO assessment for last year said that there was a greater than 90 per cent certainty that an increase in greenhouse gas emissions has caused most of the global warming since the mid-20th century.

If those who believe that man-made global warming gases are intensifying extreme Enso weather are right, the devastation in Australia is a warning that we alter the climate at our peril.

The writer is a visiting senior research fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

Source: www.wildsingaporenews.blogspot.com

Green Business Boost Through Innovation & Sustainability

GreenWise in the United Kingdom polled 25 firms, NGOs, business groups and commentators for their views on the outlook for the low carbon economy and green business in 2011 and most said the conditions were right for real progress on reducing carbon emissions and placing sustainability at the heart of business. Jon Bentley, of IBM Global Business Services, was optimistic because major corporations were “returning their attention to issues of sustainability, boosting the market for innovative low carbon solutions”. Meanwhile, investment in infrastructure by countries such as China was creating markets for innovative solutions.

By Louise Bateman, GreenWise, part of the Guardian Sustainable Business Network in UK (13 January 2011):

GreenWise polled 25 firms, NGOs, business groups and commentators for their views on the outlook for the low carbon economy and green business in 2011.

While some said it would be a year of mixed fortunes, most said the conditions were right for real progress on reducing carbon emissions and placing sustainability at the heart of business. There was also optimism expressed about the growing commercial opportunities in the market for green goods and services and the greater part businesses will start playing in protecting the world’s ecosystems.

Green policy

On the international front, most felt hopeful that a global climate deal would come about following better than expected progress in Cancun, while at home Government policy around electricity market reform, the Green Deal, Feed-in Tariffs and the Renewable Heat Incentive, were viewed as key measures in 2011 for establishing a low carbon economy.

But the jury is still out on whether the Coalition Government will deliver on its promises to be the “greenest government ever”. And there is uncertainty about how recovery from recession, sovereign debt and the UK planning system will affect investment in the low carbon economy in 2011.

Big business

The mood was particularly positive among big business. Paul Turner, head of Sustainable Development, Lloyds Banking Group, said 2011 would be “a good year for the green economy” because of “commodity prices”, which would make businesses “look hard at how operational efficiencies can be made”.

He said, the Carbon Reduction Commitment “which for many businesses now stands for ‘costly, really costly’, is driving efficiency and the Feed-in Tariff is driving innovation. The Green Deal and the Green Investment Bank will also see further development this year. All of these bode well for the ‘green’ economy.”

Jon Bentley, Smarter Energy lead, IBM Global Business Services UK & Ireland, was “optimistic” about 2011 because major corporations were “returning their attention to issues of sustainability, boosting the market for innovative low carbon solutions”. Meanwhile, investment in infrastructure by countries such as China was creating markets for innovative solutions, which would “create a powerful set of new competitors seeking to export domestic solutions”.

Tom Delay, chief executive of the Carbon Trust, added: “We are at a turning point where business is moving from a debate about whether or not the green economy offers opportunity, to an all-out race for competitive advantage in the growing markets for green products and services.”

Environmental footprint

There was a sense, too, that ‘early movers’ in 2010 had set the foundations for greater environmental responsibility by the business community in 2011.

“Last year, all kinds of multinationals started to look beyond their lesser direct carbon emissions at the greater impacts up and downstream of operations,” said Dax Lovegrove, head of Business & Industry at WWF. “We saw the likes of Unilever, Wal-Mart and Tesco set bold ambitions for reducing significant emissions from supply chains and customers at the point of using products.”

But such positiveness was tempered by caution, particularly when it came to policy-making and investment.

“Government changes to the planning system could delay investment needed in our low carbon energy infrastructure,” warned Rhian Kelly, head of Climate Change at CBI.

View the full breakdown of answers here.

http://www.greenwisebusiness.co.uk/news/greenwise-poll-will-2011-be-significant-for-green-business-2039.aspx

Source: www.guardian.co.uk

WWF & Coca Cola Singing  in Perfect Harmony on Sustainability

Coca Cola is planning to break its silence on its corporate social responsibility, and in 2011 it will say more – and do more – that just “get the world to sing in perfect harmony”. Last year, the company gave WWF Canada $500,000 to aid in freshwater preservation, protection of polar bears, and to sponsor the organization’s Earth Hour initiative, part of a worldwide partnership worth $20-million annually.

Simon Houpt for CTV, Canada’s largest private broadcaster (13 January 2011):

It’s not often that a company with an annual marketing budget of $1-billion thinks of itself as a shrinking corporate violet. Coke after all, is known for its global ad campaigns: efforts that literally change the face of Christmas, or that teach the world to sing in perfect harmony.

Last year at this time, the company’s Canadian division was tying the country together with a 45,000-kilometre Olympic torch relay that stretched across more than 1,000 communities. If it doesn’t thump its chest, it doesn’t have a brand value estimated by Interbrand to be worth more than $70-billion (U.S.).

Yet there was Nikos Koumettis, the president of Coca-Cola Ltd. Canada, saying of the company’s corporate social responsibility initiatives: “Concerning CSR, we were silent.” Other companies, meanwhile, were stealing the limelight.

This struck Coke executives as unfair. “As a company culture, we were and still are, I think, a company that prefers to do a lot of stuff rather that talk about it,” Mr. Koumettis said. “For 10 years now we were doing a lot of things relating to the environment. But the awareness of all those things was close to zero.”

“A lot of other companies – the way we feel at least – were doing much less than us, talking much more.”

If that’s true, then you can mark 2011 as the year Coke breaks its silence. Next month, Coca-Cola Canada will kick off the beginning of a long-term campaign that represents what executives are calling a “significant investment” in marketing their environmental bona fides.

Last month, the company convened a roundtable discussion on sustainable partnerships at its largest Canadian facility in Brampton, Ontario, hosted by Toronto news anchor Anne Mroczkowski and attended by more than 60 business leaders, politicians and non-profit executives, including the local MP Ruby Dhalla, Ontario Minister of Natural Resources Linda Jeffrey and Ontario Minister of Transportation Kathleen Wynne.

But while Coke executives participated, the event was designed to allow the company to bask in the reflected light of non-profit organizations benefiting from its munificence. Gerald Butts, the president and CEO of World Wildlife Fund Canada, praised Coke’s commitment to not just change its business practices, but influence others in the process.

Last year, the company gave WWF Canada $500,000 to aid in freshwater preservation, protection of polar bears, and to sponsor the organization’s Earth Hour initiative, part of a worldwide partnership worth $20-million annually. While the WWF has Coke’s ear on sustainability and wildlife issues, it also benefits from the beverage giant’s advice on marketing expertise.

“Coke is the No. 1 purchaser of aluminum on the face of the earth – which is one of the most carbon-intensive commodities,” noted Mr. Butts. “The No. 1 purchaser of sugar cane. The No. 3 purchaser of citrus. The second-largest purchaser of glass, and the fifth-largest purchaser of coffee.

“We could spend 50 years lobbying 75 national governments to change the regulatory framework for the way these commodities are grown and produced. Or these folks at Coke could make a decision that they’re not going to purchase anything that isn’t grown or produced in a certain way – and the whole global supply chain changes overnight. And that in a nutshell is why we’re in a partnership.”

“Coke is literally more important, when it comes to sustainability, than the United Nations.”

By 2020, Coke has committed to reclaiming and recycling the equivalent of all of the packaging it uses around the world. It has also committed to adding back into water systems an equivalent of all the fresh water it extracts during production of its beverages.

In Canada, both of those goals are likely achievable within that time frame, if challenging: Recycling efforts here are far more integrated into society and local infrastructure than south of the border – never mind in less developed countries.

“Canadians, from all the research we have, are much more environmentally sensitive than other countries,” said Mr. Koumettis, in explaining why the company used Canada as the launching pad for its PlantBottle, a completely recyclable bottle that has a smaller carbon footprint in part because it is made of up to 30 per cent plant-based material.

“Seventy-five per cent of Canadians versus 45 per cent of Americans recycle plastic bottles, 73 per cent of Canadians versus 50 per cent believe excessive packaging fills up excess landfills, and 77 per cent of Canadians versus 27 per cent of Americans are concerned about global warming and climate change,” he said.

In Canada, Coke is working with the WWF to protect and repair sensitive water systems, such as the Skeena Watershed in northern British Columbia. The company currently has water strategies in 86 countries, including India, where its efforts include widespread rain collection: an innovative move, but not a solution. Which is one reason executives admit they don’t yet know the pathway to their goals.

But a tour through the Brampton plant shows a company that’s reshaping its business practices with concerns for sustainability at the core. Down on the factory floor, a chart tracks the progress made over the last 12 months in recycling the materials (plastic, cardboard, aluminum, wood, metal) that come into the plant, how much ends up in landfill, and the factory’s water usage ratio (that is, how many litres of water it takes to make a litre of product). Recycling now regularly flirts with the 99-per-cent mark; its water ratio continues to fall.

Despite the fact that Coke is only (at least by its own estimation) really just beginning to market its sustainability initiatives, the company says its key measures are improving, most notably with a “double digit” increase among its key youth demographic in what it calls “brand trust.”

“I think for a business to ignore what is important to a community they operate in ultimately will not put them in a good place,” says Kevin Warren, the president of Coca-Cola Refreshments Canada. “Communicating to people how they can make a difference, and how we can make a difference, will be good for the community, but will be good for our business as well.

Source: www.ctv.ca

World Water Day is a Carbon & Conservation Story Worth Telling

Water footprint, like carbon footprint, is by no means a perfect measure.  But its usefulness is in educating the general public and broadening their view about the impact their choices and behaviour have on a finite resource like water. People can effect change over time, as we are beginning to see with the concept of carbon footprint, says Dan McCarthy, president and chief executive officer of Black & Veatch’s global water business. Singapore is going all out to promote World Water Day, coinciding with World Storytelling Day, being celebrated on 20 March this year.

Small steps to shrink Singapore’s water footprint

Dan McCarthy in The Straits Times (8 January 2011):

THE world’s environment is under pressure. Climate change and the increasing demand for resources are placing life on our planet at risk. High-level debates at Cancun are one thing, but can each of us make a difference the next time we order chicken rice, or say, beef noodles?

The answer is probably yes. The choice of what you eat can make an impression on what is described as your ‘water footprint’.

We are already familiar with the concept of ‘carbon footprint’. Singaporeans increasingly buy environmentally friendly products such as energy-saving light bulbs, which lower our carbon footprint as well as save us money.

But how conscious are we about conserving our limited water supply? Singaporeans, as a people, are arguably more conscious than most.

With relatively little land to collect rainwater and no natural aquifers, Singapore’s founding fathers strove hard for water independence. Their consciousness of water as a precious resource rippled through society. Monthly water utility statements show graphs indicating the volume of water consumed, so households can take action to conserve water.

The Clean and Green Singapore campaign is another example. Speaking at the launch of the campaign last November, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong encouraged citizens and businesses to defend their environment as they would defend their country.

Every day, each Singaporean uses on average 155 litres of water, and there are plans in place to cut this figure to 147 litres by 2020. These figures include the water we drink, as well as other domestic indirect uses, from bathing to washing our clothes. But it does not reflect our total water footprint, including what is termed virtual (or embedded) water.

Most of the water that the world uses is in fact consumed by industries and agriculture, not by households. The concepts of water footprint and virtual water acknowledge our direct use, but also help us begin to understand our indirect consumption of water. Most of the water we consume indirectly goes into making the goods we use, rather than being physically contained in the final products.

For example, the production of 1kg of wheat consumes about 1,300 litres of water, but the production of 1kg of beef requires about 15,500 litres of water. In comparison, the water footprint of chicken is only about 3,900 litres a kg of meat.

The virtual water content of manufactured products as well as some services can also be measured. On average, it takes about 400,000 litres of water to produce a typical passenger car, while it has been estimated that one Google search would consume one-tenth of a teaspoon of water.

Water footprint, like carbon footprint, is by no means a perfect measure. It glosses over significant issues such as the availability of water at the site of its consumption, and how this should be reflected in the price a consumer eventually pays for a product.

Still, the value of the concept lies in its usefulness in educating the general public and broadening their view about the impact their choices and behaviour have on a finite resource like water. Armed with this knowledge, people can effect change over time, as we are beginning to see with the concept of carbon footprint.

So should you become a vegetarian or limit your consumption of red meat? This is not a matter I would preach about, but I would argue that people should be aware of how their choices can have an impact on the environment. What I would encourage are simple steps to encourage wise water use.

Limiting our time taking a shower, washing a full load of clothes, and even less obvious methods such as not littering our drains will translate into wasting less of our precious water resource. In terms of indirect use, there is little agricultural production in Singapore, but businesses can play their part by implementing water efficiency management plans.

If we start small, we can work towards solving broader water scarcity issues and ultimately reducing our water footprint.

The writer is president and chief executive officer of Black & Veatch’s global water business.

Source:  www.wildsingaporenews.blogspot.com

World Storytelling Day and World Water Day in Singapore 20 March 2011

To coincide with World Storytelling Day and World Water Day (being celebrated on 20 March in Singapore), Roger Jenkins – storyteller, actor, director and writer – is organising storytelling performance called WATER WOR(L)DS, supported by the Singapore Environment Council (SEC) and being promoted by Sustain Ability Showcase Asia (SASA).

Water Wor(l)ds 

8pm   NTUC Auditorium
8th floor, NTUC Centre, 1 Marina Boulevard 
Admission by Donation All proceeds to be collected by the Singapore Environment Council  for an ASEAN potable water project
Join Roger, Chuah Ai Lin, Dolly Leow, and young storytellers from CHIJ Toa Payoh Secondary ELDDS and Jurong West Primary as they share a fascinating collection of traditional folktales from around the world.  Gillian Tan will also sing songs on the theme of water.  All performers are volunteering their services.

This beautiful Auditorium has a stunning view of the new Marina Bay Reservoir which at night is truly spectacular!  It seats 550 but to make sure of your seats please email Roger Jenkins – rogerstoryteller@gmail.com – to reserve them.  Do note that, to ensure accountability of fund collection, your donation will only be taken at the door under SEC supervision.  

The international observance of World Water Day is an initiative that grew out of the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro.

The United Nations General Assembly designated 22 March of each year as the World Day for Water by adopting a resolution.This world day for water was to be observed starting in 1993, in conformity with the recommendations of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development contained in chapter 18 (Fresh Water Resources) of Agenda 21.

States were invited to devote the Day to implement the UN recommendations and set up concrete activities as deemed appropriate in the national context.

The Subcommittee welcomes the assistance offered by IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre to contribute to an information network centre in support of the observance of the Day by Governments, as required.

Source: www.worldwaterday.org and www.rogerjenkins.com.sg