Wednesday 28 October 2015

Green Marketing

When we see that this company is more 'green' than the other, are we more inclined to purchase it? 
Definitely. 
It is understandable that most of us (mankind in general, not just BES students) are biophillic. 
We are born to love the nature, our environment, mother earth, the animals. It in innate. 
However recently, there has been a trend of visual consumption of nature. That is, advertisements highlights beautiful natural areas, 
such as the video here: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCXE7KAdbnU 
Basically, it is evident that major corporations are putting in the effort to look brand their products as green, tapping into the market of 'environmentally-friendly' people.
For instance, The Body Shop, known to not conduct animal testing and has been branded in a very 'natural' way, is actually under Loreal. 
It seems like these companies are simply trying to tap into a new market of consumers, and branding themselves as noble, caring and selfless companies. 
As to whether it is a good or a bad thing, we can never be too sure. 
Since some companies are branding themselves to be pro-environment, such as contributing to conservation of certain species, yet are not 'green' in their production efforts. Such as Newmont that claims to be one of the world's leading gold producers and in industry leader in safety and sustainability, actually contributes to the conservation of sea turtles in the local community. They blow up the pro-environment part, yet leave the pollution caused by their production method unspoken. 
Well things like CSR may seem like a great way to deal with environmental issues - playing on ethics, values and morals to encourage firms to become more environmentally friendly, but at the same time it could be used as a tool of diversion to keep the other environmentally unfriendly production methods under wraps. 

Wednesday 21 October 2015

Love your monsters - technology and how we use them.

This is the Anthropocene, an age for humans, by humans. It is undeniable that we caused extinction of many species while our species thrived – albeit not all of our species. On one hand we are saying guys, the earth is dying maybe we should do something about it, like being more sustainable in our activities. Then we say world population is increasing, we have to produce more goods in a more sustainable way to ensure our future generations can survive. Question: Why should we let human population to continue increasing? Is it actually necessary? It was natural selection, then artificial selection. Biodiversity has decreased drastically. What is next? Human selection? Survival of the fittest among humans? Let’s say there comes a phase whereby an environmental catastrophe caused food supply to run low and people start sacrificing some individuals for food. Then cannibalism issue becomes controversial. Is it ethical? If the problem of limited food supply persists, cannibalism persists. Even if the food supply increases over time, cannibalism would not cease to exist.  
What I am trying to say is, times change. And as times change, views change. That’s where we develop, that’s what makes us different from who we used to be. When we start questioning traditional conventional systems, a controversy happens. However, is it necessarily a good thing?
What is done cannot be undone, everything – past, present and the future, as well as nature, society and technology. Anthropocene seems like a compositional transition stage where we move from ‘organic’ to ‘inorganic’, from natural to technological. So was it better when humans were part of nature? Or will it be better if our world runs on technology? Or can we stay in the transition state for forever? Since the natural world is complex science which mankind cannot fully understand, we should not try to revert earth to how it was, by reducing consumption etc. Nor should we move forward with technology dangerously with ideas such as transhumanism emerging, since we know virtually nothing about the consequences.
Latour’s idea of ‘loving your monsters’ was idealistic. It requires a level of moral value, and the only recognised scientific field that includes ethical values is biological conservation. They believe that every organism has the right to live on this planet as much as humans do. Ironically, biological conservation preserves nature, while technology does the exact opposite. What incentive do scientists have to be responsible for their creations? To what extent does it mean to be responsible? What happens if the problems surface after they die? In fact, I think the idea of ‘loving your monsters’ is just another excuse for technological advancement, sugar-coated by the fact that more has been done to ensure that this technology is safe. How safe can transhumanism be? How can you be sure that your creations would not start having a mind of their own and become the villain we see in the movies? Humans are likely to be the cause of the end of the Anthropocene if we continue to live in the black box. Not fully understanding something and going ahead is risking. Risks can bring about great results, but it still is a gamble.
Rather than being caught up in our own vanity, maybe we should really turn back and truly understand nature before we start implementing changes. We could very well be as dead as any other planet out there in the universe. Maybe we should start appreciating all the things we have taken for granted, rather than try to manipulate something that has been there for millions of years, which could possibly result in an end to all these amazing things. 

Thursday 15 October 2015

Its a good world.

Its absolutely amazing that I am part of a team working on a coffee table book to promote environmental protection. And because of that, I am contacting amazing individuals, reading up on successful environmental activists all over the world. It truly is amazing to read about all the inspiring individuals. I can't help but ponder. How did they become so successful in advocating for such a unconventional cause? How did they get funds? How did they convince firms to fund them? Its amazing. Maybe the world is not as 'business-y' as I thought it was. Maybe there can be times where ethics, morals, biophillia feelings are greater than capitalistic ones. Maybe the world is not as selfish as we think it is.

I mean look at amzing people like Jane Goodall.
Or the WWF
or any local organisations that are successful in protecting the natural areas in their community.
There are people out there who cares about the environment more than they care about their own well-being. And these are the people that inspires me, inspires us BES students everyday.
Change is possible. 

Wednesday 7 October 2015

Problem with science

The following post is a response to the following texts:
Taming Nature  and Monocultures of the Mind
After reading the 2 texts, I have a main takeaway. That is, nature is very complicated science, and mankind’s understanding of nature is insufficient and coupled with capitalism, resulted in homogeneity on a global scale today.
The moment we start growing crops, cultivation is happening, alienation and domination of nature is happening. We alienate as we separate from nature, by cultivating crops which we choose to consume. We dominate as we choose what stays in the ecosystem and what does not to a certain extent. Artificial selection is replaced by natural selection, and resulted in the following changes 
Today
In the past
Little species (homogeneity)
Many species (diversity)
Very vulnerable to changes in ecosystem
Less vulnerable to changes in the ecosystem
Faith in science
Faith in religion
Mostly democratic
Different types of governing systems
Dependent on nature for economic activities
Dependent on nature for survival

Nature is complex science and by cultivating we are simplifying it and reducing it to something of a much smaller value. James Scott mentioned the benefits of polyculture which people did not see in the past. “The garden was a vegetable garden, an orchard, a medicinal garden, a dump heap, a compost heap and a beeyard.” It was a sustainable orchard garden which an economist would have seen as inefficient use of resources, failure to specialise and trade… As such, polycultures, which essentially is a ‘mini rainforest’, would be a better way of life compared to monocultures as it has higher flexibility, lower vulnerability and social values. Rather than developing and conforming to western values, the indigenous locals could have been better off if they stuck to their original way of life. However they could be seen as ‘poor people’ who needs help from the rest of the ‘richer population’. Maybe we should stop enforcing values on people who are different from us, thinking that is the best for them.

On Monday, Prof Jerome mentioned how breaking away of colonization and spreading the system of democracy was in fact increasing homogeneity, because the westerners believed that democracy was the best system and should be adopted all over the world and the act of removing other systems itself is a communist one, the same goes to how traditional knowledge systems are replaced by science.

Unlike other knowledge systems are usually intertwined with religious beliefs, science is the closest thing we ever had to the truth. However, many fail to realise that science could still be very well far away from reality. This is because scientific experiments involve keeping other variable constant except the variable that is in the hypothesis. The problem with science is that it is derived from keeping all else constant but nothing is constant in reality. If you happen to miss out any one factor or thing and not conduct experiments on it, that is where unintended consequences happens. I was having dinner with another Tembusian yesterday and a friend of mine, who is a political science student, was saying ‘why do we have to science the shit out of everything?’ If science isn’t even that credible, why are we not more careful when it comes to new technological advancements such as genetic engineering? 

Thursday 1 October 2015

Anthropocentric Vanity.

Last week, we talked about environmental accounting as a solution to environmental problems of today. As a matter of fact, holistic accounting methodology could be our best chance at achieving sustainable development today. There are a few ways we can achieve sustainable development and one of the ways is decoupling. Biofuels allow mankind to grow our own fuels instead of having to source for more coal or fossil fuels for energy production. Even though carbon dioxide is still released when biofuels are burned, biofuel crops take in carbon dioxide as they grow hence there is zero net carbon released into the atmosphere. Since production of energy using biofuels reduces our reliance on finite energy sources and has zero net carbon emissions, it brought us a step closer to decouple from nature by reducing reliability and mitigating global warming to a certain extent. Is that really the case? Other than the carbon cycle, mankind has tipped the nutrient (nitrogen and phosphorous) cycle as well. Land that are intensified and constantly produces crops will run out of nutrients eventually, especially if agricultural practices were unsustainable. Usage of chemical fertilisers would be increased hence pollution worsens in nearby water bodies. Are such costs included when considering the use of biofuels? 

Lets take a look at the carbon cycle:


Legend:
Triangle – Zero net carbon change in the case of biofuels
Red oval – Processes accelerated due to human activities
Yellow box – Processes that should be accelerated


Since some processes in the carbon cycle are accelerated cause of humans, other processes in the cycle should be occurring at a higher speed as well so that ‘carbon equilibrium’ can be maintained. Evidently, the best solution to ensure carbon equilibrium is to restore carbon back into the form of coal or fossil fuels or any equivalent, a process also known as carbon sequestration. However, little attention or resources has been allocated to research in this area as there are no economic benefits from doing so. Furthermore, finding a solution of that sort would mean an end to the climate change crisis. If we think about it, the climate change issue has been beneficial to various industries such as the air-conditioning, irrigation, renewable energy industries etc., albeit to different extents. Hence, attention and resources are diverted to sustainable development which focuses on creating new technology to ensure continuity of human survival such as Genetically Modified Food and biofuels. New technology bring about a new set of problems which are usually resolved by creating another type of technology that creates more problems. It is a positive feedback that does not stop. We ‘develop’ as we innovate, create new problems, then innovate again to solve new problems. So are we working towards absolute decoupling or deviating away from it? Why are we not finding the missing link in the carbon cycle (sequestration) to solve this problem once and for all? It is not wrong to say that anthropogenic development happens because of vanity. We create problems to solve and feel clever and great about ourselves after solving it. 

Friday 25 September 2015

Putting an economic value on environmental costs, viable?

In the previous post, we talked about how development could be natural. However, not everything that occurs naturally are good. Things seem to go wrong when economic values are attached to the resources. For instance, rubber trees used to be of little economic value before people knew how to collect latex. Thereafter, capitalists start destroying natural forested areas to make way for rubber tree plantations. Introducing and using biofuels as a major energy source will only increase value of certain crops (first and second generation mainly), exacerbating artificial selection. In the past, humans may not have realised the possible environmental nor social consequences of human activities thus values of a product only comprise of commercial marketable value. Today, externalities such as social and environmental costs can be calculated and included in official financial accounts via costs of ecosystem services as people increasingly see the importance of sustainable development. Including socio-environmental costs into the capitalist system is a great idea since it has always been missing in the capitalist equation. Hence, the increasing attention given to biofuels can be attributed to this new holistic accounting method. However, there are a few problems associated with it. How do we know if the environmental values are ‘correct’? Are we able to accurately to translate socio-environmental values such as ‘lesser carbon footprint’ into economic values that can be included in the calculation of traditional economic accounts? Putting aside the technical problems, let us take a look at the practical problems. Is it actually viable to capitalise on the social and environmental aspect of anything? In the capitalist world, there has to be revenue, costs and self-interested capitalists who strive to maximise profits. Social and environmental costs can be calculated but private firms are not interested as the benefits (revenue) are non-excludable. In other words, firms will be incurring higher costs which benefit the society as a whole and not oneself. There is no incentive for a capitalist, whose primary aim is to maximise profits, to include such costs. In other words, traditional economic and capitalist ideas are still deeply ingrained in the international market. Then why are biofuels gaining so much attention from the LDCs such as Malaysia and Indonesia who wants to become major biofuels powers?Even though biofuels are often marketed as environmentally friendly fuels, capitalists are intrigued by other characteristics of biofuels – renewability and low costs of production. Being renewable means that it will never run out unlike coal or fossil fuels, so producers worry less about volatile prices of biofuels. On top of that, unlike other renewable resources, biofuels can be assimilated into the current energy supply chain with minimal technical adjustment hence have much lower costs comparted to renewable energy such as hydroelectric, wind or nuclear energy where power plants and infrastructure has to be built from scratch. In other words, socio-environmental accounting has little significance in affecting the biofuels market, which essentially still is driven by traditional economic factors. 

Thursday 17 September 2015

Technological advancement, natural?

Technological advancement, domination of nature, all natural processes? Recently I did a research on biofuels and there are a few interesting ideas I have come across, which i will discuss in the span of a few weeks from today onwards.
First generation biofuels (corn) are biofuels that can be both food crops and biofuels, second generation biofuels (jatropha) are those which are not of any other commercial use and third generation biofuels are genetically modified oil-producing algae. (Generations of Biofuels - Energy from waste and wood, 2015) Biofuels are of course, resources of nature and they can be signs of mankind dominating nature. Third generation biofuels are clearly dominated by us because they are ‘creations of mankind’. Others argue that domination started before that. Plants are commonly seen as the basis of life as it is the source of energy for almost all living things on earth. Yet we are using these resources for our own consumption in a way that population size and survival of these species are human-dependent. In other words, domination starts when we start planting crops consciously, thereby replacing natural selection with artificial selection through manipulation of nature to suit our own needs. Does that mean discovering fire and creating tools back in the Stone Age are evidences of domination of nature? Or are they simply our means of survival? Darwin would say that technology is a tool mankind used to out compete other species (survival of the fittest). Evolution will not happen without domination – it is a natural process. Today, it seems like we dominate other species more than we are supposed to such that these species are no longer 'natural'. However if domination and evolution are natural processes, human domination of other species, domination of evolution or even nature can simply be argued to be the work of nature herself. Hence every artifact we have on earth today – cars, societies, economies, technological development, economic development, they are all a result of natural processes? 

Friday 11 September 2015

Biofuels

This post is a response to the following readings: 

The readings seem to be skeptical about the sustainability of biofuels as an alternative source of energy. For instance, the conclusion of the article talking about Japtropha in Malaysia mentioned “Japtropha is claimed: not to compete with food…” and the article about biofuels being anti-poor even stated that biofuel policies is ‘a crime against humanity’
The idea of biofuels being carbon neutral, being a renewable source of energy, even its name make it seem like a promising solution to energy security issues in the light of climate problems we are facing today.
However biofuels cause problems such as food security (first generation biofuels) and worsening of environmental problems (second generation biofuels) which are difficult to address. Thus the question is: Is this trade-off worth it?
If we take this question to a global scale where fossil fuels are depleting rapidly, the trade-off would be worth it as food security is not undermined. Moreover, biofuels are relatively more environmentally-friendly compared to fossil fuels. Today, we produce more than enough food for everyone in the world – the problems lies in food distribution. Hence, allocating some food crops to biofuels can in fact reduce food wastage. I admit this is a very naïve idea but I believe if detailed analysis was done and policies are put in place, there will be minimal price spikes in the agricultural markets. Idealistically, an effective system that collects wasted food to be used as biofuels would make the world go round.
However if we were to take it to a national scale, biofuels may not be the answer to countries with poor food security and limited arable land. Nations that lack food security usually are underdeveloped (and are reliant on primary sectors) hence may be more encouraged to dive into this new prospective market without proper policies in place to ensure food security and minimize environmental degradation.
Even with sound policies in place, there are still risks in biofuels investments as these biofuels would mainly be exported out for energy consumption in developed countries, who are pumping capital to fund research efforts to deal with the energy crisis. Technology such as fracking or third generation biofuels could be seen as a better alternative to the conventional biofuels which have a shorter lifespan.

Biofuels has been around for a long time and yet it has never gained popularity. Albeit there has been technological improvements (second generation and the upcoming third generation), biofuels are still not as sustainable as it claims to be and it is closely linked to food markets, which is an important yet volatile market by nature. Hence, biofuels should not be the answer to our impending energy crisis as there are many other alternatives we can turn to. 

Tuesday 1 September 2015

Are obese people causing environmental problems?

Agricultural activities are major drivers of climate change. For instance, The U.S. food system contributes nearly 20 percent of the nation's carbon dioxide emissions. Usage of fertilisers and pesticides releases pollutants and greenhouse gases into the environment. Not forgetting the costs of food distribution.
The idea that over-consumption of food is causing environmental problems seems like a legitimate one. Since people consume more food, more are produced to satisfy their demands hence obese people generally will have a larger footprint. Especially since population in increasing exponentially, over-consumption of food would be major problem of tomorrow even if it is not today.
However we can argue that it is over-production of food that caused environmental problems – not consumption. Since food is a basic necessity, nations would like to be self-sufficient instead of importing food from other nations. In the world where free trade is encouraged, governments have to take protectionist measures in the forms of subsidies, food storage for surpluses, etc. to ensure that food products produced by their nation remains competitive in the global market. As such, the ‘invisible hand’ will no longer be able to work its magic, resulting in too many producers in the market, contributing to the problem of food wastage. A report estimated that a third of food produced in the world is never consumed, and these unconsumed food results in an array of other environmental issues.
With the noble notion of solving world hunger, many different food product markets such as GMOs have been introduced due to technological innovation. Food industries are more productive than before, yet world hunger persists due to unequal distribution of food resources. Are technology introduced for the sake of using technological production methods? Or is it simply a ploy of the large firms. For instance, Golden rice is pegged as a solution for Vitamin A deficiency. However, there are many other sources of vitamin A such as sweet potatoes, which delivers around 150% more tonnes of food per hectare than Golden rice and 15 times the beta carotene of the best performing Golden rice variety. Some markets in agriculture exists as large firms manipulate poor farmers to continuously purchase seeds that are unable to reproduce. Usage of pesticides and fertilisers have improved food crops in terms of quality and quantity but has adverse effects on the environment and human health. Simply put, why would you consume something even pests are avoiding? What are the chemicals they put in the pesticides that deters pests and most importantly, how are these chemicals affecting our body? The answers to this question could become an industrial secret, or are unfound. Yet our farmers are using these products as there are insufficient scientific proof that these products are harmful (or rather there is not much funding given to such research).

In general, the markets in agriculture have failed, and are not operating at which the ‘invisible hand’ would guide them to. Paradoxically, it is not due to increased demand for food products, but increased supply driven by rich firms and even the governments. 

Thursday 27 August 2015

Is capitalism the answer to ENV problems?

Why are people so alienated from nature today? We attain food from food kiosks instead of plucking berries from bushes; we attain potable water from taps instead of rivers; our roads are tarred instead of grassy greens or mud. Today, nature and the society we live in seems to be mutually exclusive.
Majority of us city dwellers forget the fact that everything we have in our lives today is a result of a forced sacrifice by nature. For instance, printing an article. Where did the paper come from? How much electricity is consumed to print it? How is electricity generated? What are the components of the printer? What materials were used to make them? How were the materials obtained? My point is, people are not unaware that we are stripping earth’s natural resources to support our daily activities.
In the past, when humans were still one with the nature, mankind depended on nature for basic survival. Today we depend on nature not for basic survival, but for greater comforts which un-coincidentally shares a positive relationship with economic development. We overconsume finite resources like fossil fuels and metals which had no economic value in the prehistoric age, in turn resulting in adverse effects on the environment which never was an issue before the age of humans.
We know the problems, yet we still continue with our lives the way it is as we have a more pressing need for profits than saving the earth. Due to capitalism, people (hence the government) are more obsessed with making money and profits gained precedence over other aspects of life, including the environment. “The point is that environmental pollution is driven by economic necessity under capitalism. Within the existing political-economic context, drastically decreasing pollution can only be brought about by economic recession.”[1]
Is capitalism really such a horrendous system?
Are capitalistic methods such as carbon credits be a solution from a problem that stems from capitalism? 
Being capitalistic involves being self-interested, hence we tend to prioritise, even our values and principles against societal ones. Even though I am not pro-capitalist, I have to admit this system is rather effective. The competitive nature of this system is what brought about the Anthropocene, where many innovative technological advancements surfaced and mankind have achieved many milestones. The environment may have been neglected, or even alienated as a result of our greed. Nevertheless, firms down the supply chain will still have to address environmental issues eventually as we are never really alienated from the nature as resources for human activity stems from nature. Or simply because as people get richer they demand for a clean (and probably green) environment. Since capitalism manipulates the idea of self-interest, there will always be a place for the environment in capitalism as a person’s environment is always part of their self-interest. It may seem otherwise today as the environmental problems are either not close to us, or are still tolerable. In time to come, these problems would be impossible to ignore and capitalism would work its magic. However, will it be too late? And, will the poor be saved from the pending catastrophe?




[1] Adapted from Global Political Ecology by Richard Peet, Paul Robbins and Michael Watts

Wednesday 19 August 2015

Private sector and community working hand in hand?

I have to make it known that some of my posts, including this post are adopted from my free response writing essays for another module, Green Capitalism.

This post is a response to this article: Renewing the Penobscot

Summary of the Article:
There are many damns built along the river in Penobscot, which resulted in a series of social and environmental problems, upsetting different parties including the locals and environmentalists. Then come along this guy named Scott who managed to bridge the gap between the hydroelectric company and the community.

Scott's story in Penobscot was a beautiful one. It shows that people with different interests can actually come together to help resolve socio-environmental issues proving positive changes possible - as long as the people are determined to make it work. In this case, asking a hydroelectric company to shut down her dam seems like an impossible idea. Yet the team managed to come to a consensus that the dam is to be removed, and the firm was agreeable as there were series of modest energy enhancements to sustain the firm’s generating capacity. It was a beautiful story with a great outcome in which all stakeholders benefitted eventually.
Yet the undeniable truth is that these are anomalies.
As technology advances, mankind are less and less dependent on the natural environment for sustenance. For instance, fossil fuels are finite and decreasing at an appalling rate. Governments are looking for alternatives to provide for energy but are spoilt for choices as there are so many different means of energy generation today. The worry that our future generations will not have sufficient resources can be easily resolved with technological innovation. The bigger issue is, will everyone be able to get access to the technology, or will some be left behind?
The problem lies in the fact that these producers choose to turn a blind eye to the environmental and social consequences and risks associated with these economic activities, which stems from outsourcing. Most developed countries have stringent environmental laws in place, policies to protect the well-being of the people hence it is very troublesome and expensive for production of certain goods in their home countries. This resulted in a shift of pollutive industries to cheaper alternatives with lesser red tape, generating more pollution than before.
The simple underlying problem is that the pollutants are not directly affecting the people running these firms. If the stakeholders of a chemical plant were to live in the vicinity of the plant, the plant is sure to produce minimal polluted air, process its waste properly and ensure that the plant would not blow up. The truth is, these stakeholders are probably across the globe in the comforts of their home, wondering how to further reduce cost of production, especially if outsourced to places with lenient rules and regulations in place. Firms generally are purposefully oblivious to these issues.

Hence I was greatly moved by Penobscot’s success in making things work. Not many firms would be willing to take this step, knowing that there could be economic losses but still invested time and money to hear the community out, and even benefitted from it eventually. Even though it was a small step towards saving the environment, it is a significant one which marks the start of Penobscot’s journey to saving their environment. 

Sunday 16 August 2015

Why Environmental Studies.

Hello!
This is a blog which is an assignment for a freshman girl studying Environmental Studies. Although it is just an assignment I hope to be able to continue updating this blog even after semester ends.

Since I was a little girl, I hardly left the comforts of the city hence I am intrigued by the idea of nature.
I watched National Geographic and Animal Planet instead of Cartoon Network or Nickelodeon. 
Yet I went on to Secondary School and Junior College burying this little interest of mine, and invested time and energy on what seems to be of utmost importance then. Netball and national exams were a huge part of my teenage life. Like almost every teen out there, I had no direction and was just enjoying my life having fun. Parts of me regretted but parts of me did not. 

It was only after A levels then I started to contemplate on what to major in, which career path am I to embark on. That is when I realised I want to stop following the crowd, I want to do something more meaningful and something that I actually am passionate about. I spent a few months looking through courses others recommended. Accountancy for good money, business for a general certificate with many jobs available, law and medicine for good money and prestige, arts and social sciences for a more relaxed uni life, engineering, architecture - the list goes on and on. Yet, I took interest in nothing of the above.  

I was lost and unsure of what to do, until I came across the Environmental Studies brochure online as I was skimming through the list of courses NUS offered. I remembered on the brochure there is a picture of a frog. That is beside the point. The point is, the moment I saw the brochure, I know that is what I want to study and advocate my life to - the environment. Many people were skeptical of my choice. They thought it was impractical and unsuitable for me. Yet I went on with it because, I know this is what I want to do. I may not have much knowledge in me right now, but it will be a different story in the near future. 

It sounds rather childish, the way I picked my choice of study. But I think sometimes you have to listen to your inner voice to lead you on the path you truly are meant to walk.
This blog post marks the start to a very amazing journey ahead. & this blog would be a record of this very amazing journey that I am about to embark on. It will be filled with views, opinions, experiences and whatever seems appropriate. Cheers to accomplishing great work!