I had really wanted to write this as soon as that the ridiculous description of macaque behaviour appeared in the newspapers, but as I was busy and Dr. Michael Gummert had written a splendid response, I had an excuse to procrastinate longer on the issue. Anyhow, for some reason, I remembered something that was put up by some vegetarian society sometime back, and it finally gave me some impetus to write something about this - the truth.
Singaporeans are generally a cowardly bunch. We see wrong in the streets but we gawk and take videos and put it on STOMP instead of stopping whatever that is going on. We have grown adults fleeing at the sight of an Oriental Whip Snake. We build houses right in the middle of macaque land and run out bawling like spoilt babies when the original landlords decide to visit. I have often wondered, if this irrational fear of animals and wildlife is a result of years of conditioning by lies when we were all children. The macaque mis-reporting certainly has made me more sure of it. I shall not repeat what Michael said, he's said everything there is to say about the issue. However, the point to make is this: how many macaques (or other animals), have been trapped / killed by this lie-driven irrational fear?
The vegetarian movement suffers the same. A (probably) well-intentioned movement it may be, but perhaps the emotions, or the desperation for it to succeed have often driven such movements to base their arguments on half- or un-truths. The vegetarian movement in NUS had an argument identical to the one posted on this website. However, so much of their arguments are false. It had listed 7 points comparing humans to carnivores and herbivores and have portrayed humans seemingly to be identical to herbivores. However, there is a single point that they have neglected to consider (either out of ignorance or on purpose). Humans are primates. And they have all the characteristics that the seven points mentioned. However, great ape primates eat meat. Chimpanzees and Orang Utans hunt. Early man hunted. We possess an entire battery of enzymes capable of digesting animal matter, BUT we do not have a developed caecum of herbivores. Of course, I'm not saying that we AREN'T meant to eat plant matter, but that our physiology is meant for a omnivorous diet, tending probably to more plant than animal matter.
The vegetarian movement in all likelihood started from people who were affected by seeing animals in farms and slaughterhouses. But to argue for it from a flawed viewpoint and conveniently ignoring counter-points borders on dishonesty, and for those among us who know a bit of biology, the movement is a failure.
From the environmental point of view, I have mentioned in an earlier post, that agriculture is probably at least part of the reason that the planet is so screwed up now. To move from omnivorous to vegetarian diets will just mean that forests will be cleared for planting crops. The problem is that the planet is overpopulated with Homo sapiens living environmentally unsustainable lifestyles.
Saturday, April 5, 2008
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Earth Hour and Coal-fired Power Plants
The happenings in the past week over Earth Hour and the Tuas power plant has reinforced further my stand that there should be an ecologist / conservation scientist in a cabinet over-populated with engineers and economists. I’m not sure if the government intended to thrust him out in the open, but it seems Senior Minister of State for Trade and Industry S. Iswaran must bear a lot of criticism for a lot of the things that have happened that are not very green.
At a speech on the 6th November in 2007, Mr Iswaran said this:
“Energy, in particular, will be a key challenge for East Asia and ASEAN. As our cities grow and our peoples’ lives improve, we will need more energy for everything that we do – to light our homes, fuel our cars and power our industries. We are cognizant of the fact that reliable and affordable energy is an essential element of the urban lifestyle. We are equally and perhaps acutely aware of the trade-offs to be made between more intensive use of energy and the impact on our environment. Emissions from vehicles, factories and power stations affect our air quality. The burning of fossil fuels for energy is also the key contributor to greenhouse gas emissions.
East Asia and ASEAN, which embody developed and emerging economies and populous countries, epitomises this triangle of tension between economic growth, energy requirements and environmental sustainability. Unbridled growth without heed to environmental consequences is not an option. Neither is the surrender of economic growth and higher living standards for our people. Indeed, the East Asia and ASEAN economic integration process, with all its diversity and varied interests, will be a litmus test of mankind’s ability to balance the demands of development with the needs of the environment, to reconcile progress with sustainability. With rising concerns about climate change, we have to procure alternative and renewable energy sources, promote better emission-reduction technologies and energy efficiency, and protect existing carbon sinks such as the tropical rainforests of Asia. The Southeast Asian and East Asian countries need to take collective ownership of this challenge and be part of the global effort to find solutions.”
5 months after he says that, Tuas Power is considering coal-fired power plants, due to “lower operating costs”. With the privatization of the energy sector, the other two companies, Power Seraya and Power Senoko, might have no choice but to switch to this cheaper alternative or be phased out. What about the soot and emissions that are making atheletes pull out from the Olympics in coal-powered China (keeping in mind that Singapore is due to host the 2010 Youth Olympic Games)? Isn’t this under “unbridled growth without heed to environmental consequences”? It is shocking to see the government silent over this. How is the building of coal-fired power plants procurement of “renewable energy sources”? We might be able to make some improvements in emission reductions and energy efficiency, but has the carbon footprint of this project been considered? There are carbon costs in coal-mining, in coal transport, in plant building, and of course in firing the coal. Not to mention the atrocious safety conditions of many of China’s coal-mines. There could be blood seeping from you light switches in the future. Did Mr Iswaran forget what he said in that speech?
Earlier in the year, Mr Iswaran gave another speech, at the 23rd Asia-Pacific Petroleum Conference. He said:
“We will endeavour to integrate biofuels into our oil industry. In the last 3 years, the Economic Development Board of Singapore has made considerable headway in the biofuels sector by jump-starting biodiesel manufacturing on Jurong Island. With these efforts, Singapore’s biodiesel production output is expected to exceed one million tons per annum by 2010, and reach three million tons per annum by 2015.”
I wonder where the feedstock for the biofuel manufacturing will come from. The question is not in the type of feedstock, but whether the plantations where the raw materials come from are planted in felled forest land. Would the government make sure that the feedstock came from plantations that are not the result of forest lost? Or are they going to take Malaysia’s head-in-the-ground stand and pretend oil palm plantations are forests? Would Singapore be willing to reject feedstock from such areas at the risk of a loss of revenue (given that Mr. Iswaran already said “protect existing carbon sinks such as the tropical rainforests of Asia”)? I await the results of the biodiesel manufacturing efforts.
Having given all those speeches, it is unfortunate, then, that Mr. Iswaran had to attend (and not object to) the F1 light-up during Earth Hour. This has probably led many to question the sincerity of his, and of the government’s commitment to energy-efficiency and being “responsible global citizens”. True enough, we are seeing letters being fired into forums and newspaper columns. And as far as I’ve seen, the government and Mr. Iswaran have again kept quiet. Earth Hour, while itself doesn’t actually save the world, is a symbolic gesture, to move masses to the conservation movement. It is ridiculous to simply look at one hour of savings versus the rest of the year. Symbolic gestures, are much like the one minute silence of remembrance, and should be respected. I’m not sure if the he knows that he had just trampled on the efforts of millions around the world, like a moron who bursts out laughing or jeering a one minute silence. During the event itself, Mr. Iswaran said the following:
“"The environmental concerns are legitimate. But you must keep them in perspective. You can't have an F1 race without noise. The cars make a lot of noise. In fact, it is part of the thrill for many fans and spectators.”
"But having said that, the F1 organisation is based in Europe where environmental consciousness is very high and they, as an organisation, have undertaken many measures to make sure they are minimising their carbon footprint, if not making it zero their carbon footprint. That's one part we should be paying attention to."
"The other element is that they are also undertaking various research efforts, for example in bio fuel and so on, to see how that can be adapted. So although the F1 is seen, at least in first blush, it might be anti-environment, there are many things they are doing that is actually pro environment,"
The environmentalists among us would have ripped his little comment to shreds in a minute. Formula One, with the fuel consumption, races all over the world, and long development process from prototype to the actual race car, means that they will probably never be carbon-neutral. Through R&D, what can be done is to reduce their carbon footprint, but making something less anti-environment is not the same as being pro-environment. The part on the biofuels is a bit dodgy as well, since we do not know how those fuels came about, as mentioned earlier. But don’t be mistaken. I’m not anti-Formula One. In fact I follow Formula One results. Like a lot of “bad” things (like weapons) Formula One is proof of mankind’s engineering ingenuity and mastery, and we should be proud of it. However, we also need these engineer-whizzes to put their heads to designing even more efficient engines as well.
I’m not sure how well-versed Mr. Iswaran is with environmental issues and both sides of the biofuels argument. However, to me, it seems that he needs some advice in this field. He’s MP of the area where I live, and at this rate, I’m not voting.
*Update: The Singapore GP organisers did reply to the complaints in the papers, but I still think that if they really wanted to, they would have moved it to a different time. Oh well, I'm not an economist, what do I know.
At a speech on the 6th November in 2007, Mr Iswaran said this:
“Energy, in particular, will be a key challenge for East Asia and ASEAN. As our cities grow and our peoples’ lives improve, we will need more energy for everything that we do – to light our homes, fuel our cars and power our industries. We are cognizant of the fact that reliable and affordable energy is an essential element of the urban lifestyle. We are equally and perhaps acutely aware of the trade-offs to be made between more intensive use of energy and the impact on our environment. Emissions from vehicles, factories and power stations affect our air quality. The burning of fossil fuels for energy is also the key contributor to greenhouse gas emissions.
East Asia and ASEAN, which embody developed and emerging economies and populous countries, epitomises this triangle of tension between economic growth, energy requirements and environmental sustainability. Unbridled growth without heed to environmental consequences is not an option. Neither is the surrender of economic growth and higher living standards for our people. Indeed, the East Asia and ASEAN economic integration process, with all its diversity and varied interests, will be a litmus test of mankind’s ability to balance the demands of development with the needs of the environment, to reconcile progress with sustainability. With rising concerns about climate change, we have to procure alternative and renewable energy sources, promote better emission-reduction technologies and energy efficiency, and protect existing carbon sinks such as the tropical rainforests of Asia. The Southeast Asian and East Asian countries need to take collective ownership of this challenge and be part of the global effort to find solutions.”
5 months after he says that, Tuas Power is considering coal-fired power plants, due to “lower operating costs”. With the privatization of the energy sector, the other two companies, Power Seraya and Power Senoko, might have no choice but to switch to this cheaper alternative or be phased out. What about the soot and emissions that are making atheletes pull out from the Olympics in coal-powered China (keeping in mind that Singapore is due to host the 2010 Youth Olympic Games)? Isn’t this under “unbridled growth without heed to environmental consequences”? It is shocking to see the government silent over this. How is the building of coal-fired power plants procurement of “renewable energy sources”? We might be able to make some improvements in emission reductions and energy efficiency, but has the carbon footprint of this project been considered? There are carbon costs in coal-mining, in coal transport, in plant building, and of course in firing the coal. Not to mention the atrocious safety conditions of many of China’s coal-mines. There could be blood seeping from you light switches in the future. Did Mr Iswaran forget what he said in that speech?
Earlier in the year, Mr Iswaran gave another speech, at the 23rd Asia-Pacific Petroleum Conference. He said:
“We will endeavour to integrate biofuels into our oil industry. In the last 3 years, the Economic Development Board of Singapore has made considerable headway in the biofuels sector by jump-starting biodiesel manufacturing on Jurong Island. With these efforts, Singapore’s biodiesel production output is expected to exceed one million tons per annum by 2010, and reach three million tons per annum by 2015.”
I wonder where the feedstock for the biofuel manufacturing will come from. The question is not in the type of feedstock, but whether the plantations where the raw materials come from are planted in felled forest land. Would the government make sure that the feedstock came from plantations that are not the result of forest lost? Or are they going to take Malaysia’s head-in-the-ground stand and pretend oil palm plantations are forests? Would Singapore be willing to reject feedstock from such areas at the risk of a loss of revenue (given that Mr. Iswaran already said “protect existing carbon sinks such as the tropical rainforests of Asia”)? I await the results of the biodiesel manufacturing efforts.
Having given all those speeches, it is unfortunate, then, that Mr. Iswaran had to attend (and not object to) the F1 light-up during Earth Hour. This has probably led many to question the sincerity of his, and of the government’s commitment to energy-efficiency and being “responsible global citizens”. True enough, we are seeing letters being fired into forums and newspaper columns. And as far as I’ve seen, the government and Mr. Iswaran have again kept quiet. Earth Hour, while itself doesn’t actually save the world, is a symbolic gesture, to move masses to the conservation movement. It is ridiculous to simply look at one hour of savings versus the rest of the year. Symbolic gestures, are much like the one minute silence of remembrance, and should be respected. I’m not sure if the he knows that he had just trampled on the efforts of millions around the world, like a moron who bursts out laughing or jeering a one minute silence. During the event itself, Mr. Iswaran said the following:
“"The environmental concerns are legitimate. But you must keep them in perspective. You can't have an F1 race without noise. The cars make a lot of noise. In fact, it is part of the thrill for many fans and spectators.”
"But having said that, the F1 organisation is based in Europe where environmental consciousness is very high and they, as an organisation, have undertaken many measures to make sure they are minimising their carbon footprint, if not making it zero their carbon footprint. That's one part we should be paying attention to."
"The other element is that they are also undertaking various research efforts, for example in bio fuel and so on, to see how that can be adapted. So although the F1 is seen, at least in first blush, it might be anti-environment, there are many things they are doing that is actually pro environment,"
The environmentalists among us would have ripped his little comment to shreds in a minute. Formula One, with the fuel consumption, races all over the world, and long development process from prototype to the actual race car, means that they will probably never be carbon-neutral. Through R&D, what can be done is to reduce their carbon footprint, but making something less anti-environment is not the same as being pro-environment. The part on the biofuels is a bit dodgy as well, since we do not know how those fuels came about, as mentioned earlier. But don’t be mistaken. I’m not anti-Formula One. In fact I follow Formula One results. Like a lot of “bad” things (like weapons) Formula One is proof of mankind’s engineering ingenuity and mastery, and we should be proud of it. However, we also need these engineer-whizzes to put their heads to designing even more efficient engines as well.
I’m not sure how well-versed Mr. Iswaran is with environmental issues and both sides of the biofuels argument. However, to me, it seems that he needs some advice in this field. He’s MP of the area where I live, and at this rate, I’m not voting.
*Update: The Singapore GP organisers did reply to the complaints in the papers, but I still think that if they really wanted to, they would have moved it to a different time. Oh well, I'm not an economist, what do I know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
