Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Just briefly the major issue in Australia would be water. But not only do we need it for drinking we also need it for agriculture in order to ensure our food supply can be maintained. I would say the next major resource issues are food, due to the lack of water,followed by energy. We use a lot of energy with the majority being produced from our coal resources but these resource have reached/reaching their peak and hence are dwindling and will not last for much longer. We thus need to find alternative sources of energy (i.e green energy) in order to maintain our population sustainably. Evidently land/space is not a restriction in Australia but it could be soon with the changing climate much of our land is becoming drier and of less use. This could be an issue in the future.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Population Issues II responses
Strictly and ecologically speaking, I think that the population of Singapore is unsustainable given the high population density we have. Since Singapore does not have any hinterland to depend upon, we have to import almost all our food and half of our water. If we are to go back to just meeting the most basic needs such as food, shelter and water without degrading much of the natural environment, a population of about 300 people for the whole country is a good figure. However, if we are going to define the population of a city based on the infrastructure we have and our water supplies, a figure of 1.5 million is good enough. Sure enough, we have been complaining about the weekend crowds in the shopping centres and public transport as well as traffic jams on the road. This is the result of too many cars on the road due to rising levels of affluence. There is really no magic figure on whether the population numbers are sustainable. It really all depends on the needs of the country and the level of infrastructural developments in place. Surely, wealth is the primary development on the amount of resources we can draw upon. All cities are ultimately unsustainable as they depended on other areas to draw their resources upon. But at the same time, cities are the main generators of wealth. With money, it will be able to sustain a larger population. Singapore is doing well in terms of population management as the air is generally cleaner than many other cities of the world despite high population and vehicle densities. So you see, this definitive is really very subjective.
In Singapore, the greatest limiting factor is really land. Spatial constraint is really the limiting factor on population increase. Having limited sea space also poses challenges on how much land Singapore can reclaim having to give due consideration to port development. Water is getting less important as an issue as innovative technologies is gradually helping Singapore to become more self sufficient inj water in the years to come. Spatial constraints ultimately mean limits on the number of roads we can build and hence the number of cars on the road. Given the aspirations of Singaporeans, more people would want to buy cars if car population controls are not in place. Being too densely populated also degrades environmental quality, having less spaces that can be set aside for parks, recreation and nature reserve. For the case of Australia, I guess the main issue is water? This is because a large part of Australia is desert and it is by far the driest continent on earth. Any comments from the ANU counterparts?
Space is not an issue in Australia I believe but the actual space that people would prefer to live on is only concentrated along the coastlines and not the interior. So Australia has space but most is not utilised. In Singapore's case, we are running out of space. Both countries face water shortage problems but Singapore is overcoming its water problems slowly such as building new reservoirs, desalination and ultrafiltration of sewage water. Singaporeans have accepted drinking this treated sewage water which is really ultra clean. We have put it back into the reservoirs and supply the water to industrial plants that require such ultra cleaan water such as the silicon fabrication plants. The rest is being put back into the reserviours and let nature "re-treat" this water so as to gain more acceptance from the people. But for the Australian side, I believe that this will take some time for it to be accepted as there is alot of resistance on the ground.
In Singapore, the greatest limiting factor is really land. Spatial constraint is really the limiting factor on population increase. Having limited sea space also poses challenges on how much land Singapore can reclaim having to give due consideration to port development. Water is getting less important as an issue as innovative technologies is gradually helping Singapore to become more self sufficient inj water in the years to come. Spatial constraints ultimately mean limits on the number of roads we can build and hence the number of cars on the road. Given the aspirations of Singaporeans, more people would want to buy cars if car population controls are not in place. Being too densely populated also degrades environmental quality, having less spaces that can be set aside for parks, recreation and nature reserve. For the case of Australia, I guess the main issue is water? This is because a large part of Australia is desert and it is by far the driest continent on earth. Any comments from the ANU counterparts?
Space is not an issue in Australia I believe but the actual space that people would prefer to live on is only concentrated along the coastlines and not the interior. So Australia has space but most is not utilised. In Singapore's case, we are running out of space. Both countries face water shortage problems but Singapore is overcoming its water problems slowly such as building new reservoirs, desalination and ultrafiltration of sewage water. Singaporeans have accepted drinking this treated sewage water which is really ultra clean. We have put it back into the reservoirs and supply the water to industrial plants that require such ultra cleaan water such as the silicon fabrication plants. The rest is being put back into the reserviours and let nature "re-treat" this water so as to gain more acceptance from the people. But for the Australian side, I believe that this will take some time for it to be accepted as there is alot of resistance on the ground.
Population Issues II
Hey guys, these are the questions for the last tutorial!
Preparation instructions
Following on from your earlier tutorials on population, and campus sustainability, we will think about and discuss the impact of population on sustainability by thinking about the maximum population that a country such as Singapore can sustainably support, reflecting on the resources that students think affect their proposed population limit. Following the completion of this topic, it is expected that students will have a deeper understanding of the complex policy, and ecological issues that are inherent to population policy.
Questions to consider for your one page preparation
Your responses to these questions will form the basis for our tutorial discussions:
Your estimate of what population you think Singapore can sustainably support.
ANU students will think about a sustainable population target for Singapore.
Briefly substantiate your figure by listing (in order of importance) the most significant resources that limit the population Australia and Sinagpore can sustainably support
What are some of the similarities and differences between the resources that limit Australia's population to that of Singapore?
Come prepared to discuss and defend your sustainable population target for Singapore. The ideas presented in lectures, readings and collaboration discussions with ANU may be helpful in supporting your views.
Preparation instructions
Following on from your earlier tutorials on population, and campus sustainability, we will think about and discuss the impact of population on sustainability by thinking about the maximum population that a country such as Singapore can sustainably support, reflecting on the resources that students think affect their proposed population limit. Following the completion of this topic, it is expected that students will have a deeper understanding of the complex policy, and ecological issues that are inherent to population policy.
Questions to consider for your one page preparation
Your responses to these questions will form the basis for our tutorial discussions:
Your estimate of what population you think Singapore can sustainably support.
ANU students will think about a sustainable population target for Singapore.
Briefly substantiate your figure by listing (in order of importance) the most significant resources that limit the population Australia and Sinagpore can sustainably support
What are some of the similarities and differences between the resources that limit Australia's population to that of Singapore?
Come prepared to discuss and defend your sustainable population target for Singapore. The ideas presented in lectures, readings and collaboration discussions with ANU may be helpful in supporting your views.
Monday, March 23, 2009
CAMPUS SUSTAINBILITY- ANU
GREAT WORK!
Just a few points to add from my own answers.
1. I think computers are another issue that causes alot of energy waste. They never seem to be turned off and are constatly running.
2. Other environmental strategies undertaken by ANU include the ANUgreen garden, which encourages the concept of local produce, the encouragement of bicycles through lots of space for lockign them up and pathways which are bike friendly. There is also the Hotrot organic recycling program where organic waste is recycled in order to reduce environmental and economic costs of landfill
Most of what you guys wrote is what I had too.
Just a few points to add from my own answers.
1. I think computers are another issue that causes alot of energy waste. They never seem to be turned off and are constatly running.
2. Other environmental strategies undertaken by ANU include the ANUgreen garden, which encourages the concept of local produce, the encouragement of bicycles through lots of space for lockign them up and pathways which are bike friendly. There is also the Hotrot organic recycling program where organic waste is recycled in order to reduce environmental and economic costs of landfill
Most of what you guys wrote is what I had too.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Eco Footprint Tut.
My Ecological Footprint
Food - 56%
Mobility - 6%
Shelter - 10%
Goods/Services - 28%
Global Hectares - 4.1
Number of Planets - 2.3
Really rather inaccurate calculation due to the limited nature of the options. Very difficult to play apply to a Singaporean lifestyle...
1. What can you do to reduce your own ecological footprint?
Seeing as that majority of my footprint is food consumption, i suppose that's the best are to target in bringing down the figure for the number of global hectares used. I'm not too sure about the accuracy of the tests though, since even the 'detailed' questions only involved frequency but not amount.
Another way might be to consciously look for recycled alternatives to paper and plastic packaging. Already, recycling papers and plastics, but it's possible to go one step further to make the switch to consumption of recycled material without too much trouble...
There doesn't seem to be any other way of cutting down that can be exercised on an individual level, since a lot of things here are controlled on a state or government agency level; such as buildings and power.
2. What are some of the resource inputs and waste outputs of universities like the ANU and NUS and how do these contribute to their overall footprint?
The ones that come to mind first are electricity and paper. The first is pretty much basic to keeping facilities running, while the 2nd one is just a norm of most academic/ semi-beauracratic systems that involves tonnes of paper that may or may not be of much use.
As already mentioned by the other members, the air-conditioning is likely to be the primary energy guzzler. It's likely to be supplemented by students' use of plug points for their laptops in the process of transferring points from their own carbon footprint to the schools'.
3. List some innovative strategies that the educational institutions like the ANU and NUS are doing to reduce their overall ecological footprint. Do any of these strategies challenge social or institutional "norms"? (That is, Change the way people behave or think?)
The first major step taken by NUS would be the separation of the Office of Environmental Sustainability into an independent department. One of the more useful strategies implemented was the change of submissions from single sided paper to double sided, as well as the allowance for online submissions. This should cut down the amount of waste paper as report drafts and notes are no longer thrown away with only one side printed on. This is quite contrary for an academic institution as most universities are still built on paper despite technological advancement. While many are still wasting paper at present, it's a step in the right direction that should eventually lower te carbon footprint of NUS.
4. Devise 2 strategies that ANU or NUS could implement to reduce their footprint, and enhance sustainability. Who is responsible? Individuals changing their behaviour, the univerisity changing the way it conducts business, or both? Why?
The universities could go one step beyond allowing online and digital submissions to actually encouraging it. In time it could phase out paper submissions, saving on printing costs and reducing the necessary amount of paper inputs that contribute so much to the carbon footprint. For this it might be necessary for the academic population to change their mindsets and accept more than just the hardcopy reports that they have been hardwired into viewing as the norm.
Universities could also require their vendors to use local or unprocessed food in canteens to reduce food miles. Traditionally, institutional food has never been particularly good, so standards are not necessarily an issue if local produce proves a less appetising alternative.
In the first case it would be up to the university, since students are actually quite willing in general to forgo the usual paper mess. It's mostly professorial staff who will need to be persuaded to make the switch.
The second case requires effort from the university, its contracted vendors and the students. On one hand, they need to ensure the local and unprocessed food sources. On the other, people who eat in school must be willing to support the change and actually continue eating so that the switch will not be rendered useless.
Food - 56%
Mobility - 6%
Shelter - 10%
Goods/Services - 28%
Global Hectares - 4.1
Number of Planets - 2.3
Really rather inaccurate calculation due to the limited nature of the options. Very difficult to play apply to a Singaporean lifestyle...
1. What can you do to reduce your own ecological footprint?
Seeing as that majority of my footprint is food consumption, i suppose that's the best are to target in bringing down the figure for the number of global hectares used. I'm not too sure about the accuracy of the tests though, since even the 'detailed' questions only involved frequency but not amount.
Another way might be to consciously look for recycled alternatives to paper and plastic packaging. Already, recycling papers and plastics, but it's possible to go one step further to make the switch to consumption of recycled material without too much trouble...
There doesn't seem to be any other way of cutting down that can be exercised on an individual level, since a lot of things here are controlled on a state or government agency level; such as buildings and power.
2. What are some of the resource inputs and waste outputs of universities like the ANU and NUS and how do these contribute to their overall footprint?
The ones that come to mind first are electricity and paper. The first is pretty much basic to keeping facilities running, while the 2nd one is just a norm of most academic/ semi-beauracratic systems that involves tonnes of paper that may or may not be of much use.
As already mentioned by the other members, the air-conditioning is likely to be the primary energy guzzler. It's likely to be supplemented by students' use of plug points for their laptops in the process of transferring points from their own carbon footprint to the schools'.
3. List some innovative strategies that the educational institutions like the ANU and NUS are doing to reduce their overall ecological footprint. Do any of these strategies challenge social or institutional "norms"? (That is, Change the way people behave or think?)
The first major step taken by NUS would be the separation of the Office of Environmental Sustainability into an independent department. One of the more useful strategies implemented was the change of submissions from single sided paper to double sided, as well as the allowance for online submissions. This should cut down the amount of waste paper as report drafts and notes are no longer thrown away with only one side printed on. This is quite contrary for an academic institution as most universities are still built on paper despite technological advancement. While many are still wasting paper at present, it's a step in the right direction that should eventually lower te carbon footprint of NUS.
4. Devise 2 strategies that ANU or NUS could implement to reduce their footprint, and enhance sustainability. Who is responsible? Individuals changing their behaviour, the univerisity changing the way it conducts business, or both? Why?
The universities could go one step beyond allowing online and digital submissions to actually encouraging it. In time it could phase out paper submissions, saving on printing costs and reducing the necessary amount of paper inputs that contribute so much to the carbon footprint. For this it might be necessary for the academic population to change their mindsets and accept more than just the hardcopy reports that they have been hardwired into viewing as the norm.
Universities could also require their vendors to use local or unprocessed food in canteens to reduce food miles. Traditionally, institutional food has never been particularly good, so standards are not necessarily an issue if local produce proves a less appetising alternative.
In the first case it would be up to the university, since students are actually quite willing in general to forgo the usual paper mess. It's mostly professorial staff who will need to be persuaded to make the switch.
The second case requires effort from the university, its contracted vendors and the students. On one hand, they need to ensure the local and unprocessed food sources. On the other, people who eat in school must be willing to support the change and actually continue eating so that the switch will not be rendered useless.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Campus Sustainability from Angel
Heya!! I played around with the ecological footprint calculator too, and here's my results and some thoughts.
First thing is, the calculator does not have an option for Singapore, so I chose Australia instead for the quiz. Thus I'm expecting at least some margin of error in the results I obtained, due to the differences in our 2 countries.
For example, there was one question asking about the consumption of local foods, with local being defined as less than 325km away. 325km away from me is probably way over in Malaysia or Indonesia, so I had a hard time trying to decide how to answer that.
| Category | Global Hectares |
| Food | 51% |
| Mobility | 4% |
| Shelter | 9% |
| Goods/Services | 25% |
| Total | 2.6 |
| Number of Planets | 2.2 |
Same as Janice, I explored the scenarios in the calculator. Since this tutorial's about campus sustainability, I picked only the options which I, as a student, is capable of implementing.
Reducing the amount of animal-products eaten by half decreases the number of Earths from 2.2 to 1.9, which to me was quite amazing as I eat red meat less than 3 times a week already. However, I do consume chicken, eggs and milk almost everyday, and I suppose it won't kill to cut down on those.
Purchasing products that used less packaging or were made out of 100% (PCR) recycled material would cause a reduction to 2. I guess this may not be very feasible in Singapore as everything that can be bought comes with pretty packaging. I do make an effort to not take plastic bags from the cashiers though, and use my own bags instead.
The other options did not seem to be things which I can control, so I didn't bother listing them here.
With regards to NUS, check out this site for the things which the university has done in the name of environmental sustainability (http://www.nus.edu.sg/oes/). A new Office has just been set up, so this official movement is still in its infacy stage. However, a well-publicised campaign has been circulating around the university and generating quite successful results so far. The campaign focuses on many different aspects of campus life and enforces ways for the students to "give back" to the environment. Age-old methods like the setting up of recycling bins is one of the moves. Others include the setting of all campus printers to double-sided printing option and the charging of 10 cents for every plastic bag taken from the Co-op bookstore in school. These new methods are more like enforcements rather than genuine concern for the environment on the student's part, but they do cut down on NUS' ecological footprint significantly.
However, I believe that wastage is the major problem facing NUS now. We should learn to save in the first place, instead of just coming up with new ideas. For example, setting all thermostats in lecture theatres to 25 degrees is a good way to save up on electricity (though as Janice pointed out, they don't seem to be keeping to this rule very well). Yet, there was this one time when I went back to school at night looking for a quiet place to study. It was around 12 midnight, and I happened to peek inside an unlocked lecture theatre. To my surprise, all the lights and even the air-conditioning was on though there was obviously nobody there, and I suspect that this is a common occurence. Imagine the wastage, all 32 lecture theatres on campus, guzzling on electricity all night long.
That's all I have for now. Hope to hear some views from the ANU side! :)
Friday, March 20, 2009
Campus Sustainability
hey the link for the eco-footprint calculator is HERE.
1. What can you do to reduce your own ecological footprint?
I explored the scenarios in the footprint calculator.
Reducing the amount of animal-products I eat by half decreases the number of Earths from 2.6 to 2.3. I suppose being vegetarian is the best but I love my eggs and yogurt too much!
Purchasing products that used less packaging or were made out of 100% (PCR) recycled material would reduce it to 2.4, as would having solar panels provide most of the electricity for our house. It's quite difficult for me to implement the latter because I live in an apartment and the only way for that to happen, is if the Housing Development Board suddenly felt guilty and decided to install them on the rooftops of the apartment block.
Apparently, having ALL my appliances being energy efficient does nothing much - it's still 2.6 Earths - same for using public transportation one day more each week instead of driving my car, and for taking a local holiday to avoid flying. Singapore is really small and has a quite efficient public transport network so I can reach most places by public transport, like school. But it gets tiring going to the same places in town, so sometimes I borrow my dad's car on weekends to get away to the "rural" areas which are inaccessible except by car.
If I checked all the boxes, I'd need 1.8 Earths to sustain my lifestyle.
2. What are some of the resource inputs and waste outputs of universities like the ANU and NUS and how do these contribute to their overall footprint?
Generally, resource inputs would include electricity, water, food, paper, petrol - whatever is needed to maintain a university's on-site accommodation, faculties, toilets, canteens, and to bring students in and out of school (public transport, cars, shuttle buses). Outputs would be food waste, used paper, dirty water, erm.. wasted heat from lights and air-conditioners?
In NUS, the lecture halls are ALWAYS too cold and it's even worse when it rains. I am positive that air-conditioning surely takes up a huge portion of the electricity bills.
3. List some innovative strategies that the educational institutions like the ANU and NUS are doing to reduce their overall ecological footprint. Do any of these strategies challenge social or institutional "norms"? (That is, Change the way people behave or think?)
Both institutions have the usual strategies of reducing usage or recycling, with regards to energy, water, paper, etc. It's great that NUS has got default double-sided printing in place though - a simple strategy but effective.
In terms of innovative strategies, for ANU, they purchase over 20% of their electricity from accredited green energy sources; they water some of their sports ovals with recycled water; and they encourage cycling around the campus by providing bicycles. The impact on its ecological footprint is quite direct. NUS has the Kent Ridge Park Volunteer Program - the park is adopted by interested students who reforest/maintain the greenery, do nursery work or guide visitors around; the focus of most of its innovative strategies seems to be on awareness building or education, which indirectly reduces its ecological footprint.
I suppose these strategies do in some way change mindsets, but I'm not sure whether they are converting the non-greenies to become green, or making those who were already interested/active, even more so.
4. Devise 2 strategies that ANU or NUS could implement to reduce their footprint, and enhance sustainability. Who is responsible? Individuals changing their behaviour, the univerisity changing the way it conducts business, or both? Why?
(btw what Sustainability Resource for Universities readings are they talking about? i dont see any)
Individuals are responsible, ultimately. Even though one person can't do much, if we ALL change our behaviour, it'll create a ripple effect and I feel that that is more powerful than anything else.
One strategy is to have lights activated by motion sensors, so that when there is no activity in a room, the lights will shut off automatically. Another strategy would be to decentralize the air-conditioning system so that people in air-conditioned places can adjust the temperature if they feel that its too cold. But one problem with this is that some people might forget to switch off the AC at the end of the day.
my ecological footprint
| Category | Global Hectares |
| Food | 39% |
| Mobility | 15% |
| Shelter | 15% |
| Goods/Services | 31% |
| Total | 4.7 |
| Number of Planets | 2.6 |
1. What can you do to reduce your own ecological footprint?
I explored the scenarios in the footprint calculator.
Reducing the amount of animal-products I eat by half decreases the number of Earths from 2.6 to 2.3. I suppose being vegetarian is the best but I love my eggs and yogurt too much!
Purchasing products that used less packaging or were made out of 100% (PCR) recycled material would reduce it to 2.4, as would having solar panels provide most of the electricity for our house. It's quite difficult for me to implement the latter because I live in an apartment and the only way for that to happen, is if the Housing Development Board suddenly felt guilty and decided to install them on the rooftops of the apartment block.
Apparently, having ALL my appliances being energy efficient does nothing much - it's still 2.6 Earths - same for using public transportation one day more each week instead of driving my car, and for taking a local holiday to avoid flying. Singapore is really small and has a quite efficient public transport network so I can reach most places by public transport, like school. But it gets tiring going to the same places in town, so sometimes I borrow my dad's car on weekends to get away to the "rural" areas which are inaccessible except by car.
If I checked all the boxes, I'd need 1.8 Earths to sustain my lifestyle.
2. What are some of the resource inputs and waste outputs of universities like the ANU and NUS and how do these contribute to their overall footprint?
Generally, resource inputs would include electricity, water, food, paper, petrol - whatever is needed to maintain a university's on-site accommodation, faculties, toilets, canteens, and to bring students in and out of school (public transport, cars, shuttle buses). Outputs would be food waste, used paper, dirty water, erm.. wasted heat from lights and air-conditioners?
In NUS, the lecture halls are ALWAYS too cold and it's even worse when it rains. I am positive that air-conditioning surely takes up a huge portion of the electricity bills.
3. List some innovative strategies that the educational institutions like the ANU and NUS are doing to reduce their overall ecological footprint. Do any of these strategies challenge social or institutional "norms"? (That is, Change the way people behave or think?)
Both institutions have the usual strategies of reducing usage or recycling, with regards to energy, water, paper, etc. It's great that NUS has got default double-sided printing in place though - a simple strategy but effective.
In terms of innovative strategies, for ANU, they purchase over 20% of their electricity from accredited green energy sources; they water some of their sports ovals with recycled water; and they encourage cycling around the campus by providing bicycles. The impact on its ecological footprint is quite direct. NUS has the Kent Ridge Park Volunteer Program - the park is adopted by interested students who reforest/maintain the greenery, do nursery work or guide visitors around; the focus of most of its innovative strategies seems to be on awareness building or education, which indirectly reduces its ecological footprint.
I suppose these strategies do in some way change mindsets, but I'm not sure whether they are converting the non-greenies to become green, or making those who were already interested/active, even more so.
4. Devise 2 strategies that ANU or NUS could implement to reduce their footprint, and enhance sustainability. Who is responsible? Individuals changing their behaviour, the univerisity changing the way it conducts business, or both? Why?
(btw what Sustainability Resource for Universities readings are they talking about? i dont see any)
Individuals are responsible, ultimately. Even though one person can't do much, if we ALL change our behaviour, it'll create a ripple effect and I feel that that is more powerful than anything else.
One strategy is to have lights activated by motion sensors, so that when there is no activity in a room, the lights will shut off automatically. Another strategy would be to decentralize the air-conditioning system so that people in air-conditioned places can adjust the temperature if they feel that its too cold. But one problem with this is that some people might forget to switch off the AC at the end of the day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)