Hell Hath No Fury Like Nature Scorned

Discussion on Palm Oil

2011-03-26T23:25:00.000-07:00

Recently, in the forum for Primate Conservation at my Alma Mater, someone posted a link to this report at the Adam Smith Institute.

I've read it, and a few furious replies came up. Mostly attacking it as a non-reviewed paper by a market research institute, and the admittedly sweeping statements behind it.

But I realised that all of the conservationist replies are missing the point. Often, there is no sense of reality of the situations, except that primates (or biodiversity) is there and they must be saved. I suspect it is something about being in Borneo too.

So I posted a reply and it follows here:

"Hi all,

My turn! I read the article, some very sweeping bits, for example in page 2, it says : Far from pristine rainforest being ripped out in favour of commercial crops, the majority of the country's virgin rainforest remains unspoilt and intact.".

But at the end of it all, they are fighting their corner, we are fighting ours. I don't think we should expect many economists to see our point. Not yet anyway. Our views are biodiversity-biased, their views are economics-biased, simply because we lack the training or background on each other's side. If we ran the economy, I'm sure we'd do a lot worse than what is going on now, and the economy is already very messed up. Ditto for if they were in charge of biodiversity.I think on our part as biodiversity conservationists/specialists, we should not be narrow-biodiversity scientists. Go around to the second-hand bookshop (tonnes of those in Southeast Asia - especially all you who are hanging around in my patch :P) pick out a textbook on economics; read about commodities, and about value of land - cropland, forestland; read about what drives the demand; find out why or how demand for crops hop around from one to another; look around to how land-use policies are or should be laid out, from the economist's perspective. I think a lot of times we tend to be dismissive of their views and they of conservationists.

He did make some valid points. Like mentioned by Marie, we do tend make things overblown, but that's how the way the world works. Threaten a double-dip recession and the government would bust their nuts trying to prevent it and end up with record economic growth instead. They do it, we do it. His point is valid, but I think where it differs from us, is that an economy might actually end up with record growth within the year, but we will not see record biodiversity growth within the same period of time. For the economy, it's "Yay, we did it!". For forests and biodiversity, it's "I don't see a difference, are you sure?".

A big sticking point, which he does point out, it that the VAST majority of oil palm forests is in Peninsular Malaysia, which only comprises 40% of all total land area in Malaysia. Also, there are no orangutans! Conservation should do something to address that point, because it is a good point, it is valid and we've all been silent about it, at least publicly.

I think the palm oil and forest issue is extremely tricky and complication. Firstly it does affect one of the main financial thrusts of a country run by a democracy which will fail if the government tries to change policies. The Malaysian electorate is FAR less educated and the power of the indigenous populations is too great for the government to deviate from current economic policies. I'm sure some of you will know about that having lived in Malaysia for a while.

A big big big problem is that conservationists are now increasingly viewed as anti-agriculture. The big point for economists and governments in this region who are trying to profit from the "green" movement is that palm oil are used in food, and that conservationists are worsening a global food crisis. Australia is having massive problems because of a drought that has been around for more than a decade in much of its agricultural area and then now it gets a drought which floods the fields AND the coal mines which produce theirs and many countries' power supply. All their freshwater there are increasingly turning saline. You may not feel it in Europe, but in this part of the world, all the way down to Pakistan, Australia feeds itself, Southeast Asia, and South Asia. China is facing a failed crop last year, this year, and probably the next year too. The pressures will begin to shift to Southeast Asia.

We cannot say, we are just targetting palm oil in Borneo. Economists will say, look, petroleum is expensive, the world's most populous country is running out of water, the 2 of the world's most populous countries in the world may face a food crunch from failed crops in China and possible failure in Australia, the world's most populous Muslim country in the world with a history of eruption into street violence may face in stability in the face of rising costs. Orangutans in Borneo VS palm oil/agriculture, not a difficult choice. Maybe the positions of the forests are much more unstable that we think. Also, the demand for oil palm IS increasing worldwide. The 2011 budget of Malaysia is 212 billion Malaysian Ringgit. Palm oil alone contributed 53 billion to gross national income, the value of this commodity to them is immense. Conservationists point to declining prices of palm oil, such as here: http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0127-economy_deforestation.html, but this is no longer valid. In March 2008, palm oil reached the height of $1,146,86 per metric ton. Then in declined to $522.19 in January 2009. There were many articles online about possibility of less oil palm plantations. The decline did not stay. Let me give you the trend over the last few months. By July 2010, it was up to $774.50, in August, $865.23, October $935.22. In November, it broke the psychologically important $1000 barrier, reaching $1059.01. Within the next two months, by January 2011 (this year!) it has reached $1,238.57. A record price. Today (23rd Feb) it eased off a bit, but is trading at $1107. There is another point: for Malaysia to sustain the industry, it only needs to sell the oil at around $400. So they were still quite profitable in the lean years, and they are getting close to three times cost price. What's not to like for the economist?

Yes, we know there are orangutans in the forests of Borneo. Many many many more other flora and fauna, we know about how the forests are the lungs of the world, how they contribute to the water cycle and flooding. That is why I am against the clearing of forests for palm oil. But the argument by conservationists about the bit of science here and there being wrong, and selling the orangutan like people will fall down dead the next minute, it doesn't work. Not here. Maybe in Europe and the US. Over here, getting out of the village and getting rich first is the priority. There is a country to run, mouths to feed, subsidies to give out for basic necessities. I think we have to change tack, we might also have to be less hardline.

Sorry this is very long, hopefully I've given it a different spin!"

Hope some readers will chime in with non-spam posts!

Be fair, many things are anthropogenic, but many things are NOT.

2010-06-25T00:56:00.001-07:00

Recently, many low lying places in Singapore have been flooded when 120% of an entire month’s rainfall fell in approximately three hours. After the first flooding, PUB did a check on their pipes and decided that some choked culverts may have been the cause. So PUB held their hands up and said, “Ok maybe we didn’t do enough”. Kudos to them for that. Some people (including myself) have wondered if the Marina Barrage has anything to do with it. Personally, I have a little suspicion, but hey, I’m not an engineer, and someone should explain that.

Many people have then jumped on to the back of the government, with comments like “Let’s see Dr. Yaacob Ibrahim take responsibility.” He did, through PUB. What more could he have done? Resign? Over two days of freakish rainstorms? Let’s not forget Dr. Ibrahim’s background. He’s Associate Professor of Civil Engineering at NUS, got his PhD in Cornell and did his post-doc at Stanford. Look in the Cabinet - is there a better to do that job? No. So give the man a break and let him do his job. Demanding this and that at this point in time does not help. We are all victims of freakish weather.

Then there are others that go, “Look, earthquakes, flood, drought. It’s Man’s fault. Mother Nature is paying back”. Firstly, earthquakes are the result of tectonic plate movement. NOTHING to do with anthropogenic action. Secondly, what’s the point with gloating? Happy that you might be right? Well then do something! And I mean do something more constructive than point your finger at the Minister, who quite rightly made most of our drainages culverts so they are not above ground and smelling to the high heavens. Besides, the drainages are choked partly because people are LITTERING. Is that Dr. Ibrahim’s fault too? How many people actually tell off people who litter or pick up and dispose of litter that “missed” bin?

At the end of the day, this period of flooding is the result of two freakish rainstorms. No amount of planning short of turning Singapore in Venice could have prevented the floodings, choked culverts or not. Is it the result of anthropogenic climate change? Maybe. But let’s all not forget that in Nature, unpredictable things happen. In 1703, hurricane strength winds for two weeks killed nearly 30,000 people in Britain and destroyed much of the Royal Navy. Even with modern technology and meticulous planning, could this have been prevented? Of course not. So let’s take things in perspective. Do what we can in reducing anthropogenic impacts on the environment, but when freak storms occur, we should also keep in mind that we may not have been the cause of the weather, but we still have caused the flooding by selfish daily behavior.

Guest Writer: Solar Energy, Pros and Cons

2010-06-16T21:49:00.000-07:00

I've not updated this for so long, but Barbara has kindly written an article on solar energy (especially in the light of the messy oil spills here in Singapore and in the Gulf of Mexico) which I'm going to stick below, so here goes!

Here’s a simple method to learn the way solar panels work

What is solar energy ?

Solar energy is radiant energy that's produced by the sun. Each day the sun radiates, or sends out, a huge volume of energy. The sun radiates more energy in a single second than people have used since the beginning of time!

The energy of the Sun derives from within the sun itself. Like other stars, the sun is really a big ball of gases––mostly hydrogen and helium atoms.

The hydrogen atoms in the sun’s core combine to create helium and generate energy in a process called nuclear fusion.

During nuclear fusion, the sun’s extremely high pressure and temperature cause hydrogen atoms to come apart and their nuclei (the central cores of the atoms) to fuse or combine. Four hydrogen nuclei fuse to become one helium atom. However the helium atom contains less mass compared to four hydrogen atoms that fused. Some matter is lost during nuclear fusion. The lost matter is emitted into space as radiant energy.

It takes many years for the energy in the sun’s core to make its way to the solar surface, and somewhat over eight minutes to travel the 93 million miles to earth. The solar energy travels to the earth at a speed of 186,000 miles per second, the speed of light.

Only a small percentage of the energy radiated by the sun into space strikes our planet, one part in two billion. Yet this amount of energy is enormous. Every single day enough energy strikes the united states to provide the nation’s energy needs for one and a half years!

Where does all of this energy go?

About 15 percent of the sun’s energy which hits the planet earth is reflected back into space. Another 30 percent is used to evaporate water, which, lifted into the atmosphere, produces rainfall. Solar power also is absorbed by plants, the land, and the oceans. The rest could be employed to supply our energy needs.

Who invented solar power ?

People have harnessed solar power for hundreds of years. Since the 7th century B.C., people used simple magnifying glasses to concentrate the light of the sun into beams so hot they'd cause wood to catch fire. Over a century ago in France, a scientist used heat from a solar collector to create steam to drive a steam engine. In the beginning of this century, scientists and engineers began researching ways to use solar energy in earnest. One important development was a remarkably efficient solar boiler introduced by Charles Greeley Abbott, an american astrophysicist, in 1936.

The solar water heater gained popularity at this time in Florida, California, and the Southwest. The industry started in the early 1920s and was in full swing prior to World War II. This growth lasted before mid-1950s when low-cost gas became the primary fuel for heating American homes.

People and world governments remained largely indifferent to the possibilities of solar technology until the oil shortages of the1970s. Today, people use solar technology to heat buildings and water and to generate electricity.

How we use solar power today ?

Solar power is employed in several different ways, of course. There's two simple forms of solar power:

* Solar thermal energy collects the sun's warmth through 1 of 2 means: in water or in an anti-freeze (glycol) mixture.

* Solar photovoltaic energy converts the sun's radiation to usable electricity.

Listed here are the five most practical and popular techniques solar energy is employed:

1. Small portable solar photovoltaic systems. We have seen these used everywhere, from calculators to solar garden products. Portable units can be used for everything from RV appliances while single panel systems can be used traffic signs and remote monitoring stations.

2. Solar pool heating. Running water in direct circulation systems via a solar collector is an extremely practical solution to heat water for your pool or hot tub.

3. Thermal glycol energy to heat water. In this method (indirect circulation), glycol is heated by sunshine and the heat is then transferred to water in a warm water tank. This method of collecting the sun's energy is more practical now than in the past. In areas as far north as Edmonton, Alberta, solar thermal to heat water is economically sound. It can pay for itself in 36 months or less.

4. Integrating solar photovoltaic energy into your home or office power. In most parts on the planet, solar photovoltaics is an economically feasible method to supplement the power of your property. In Japan, photovoltaics are competitive with other kinds of power. In america alone, new incentive programs make this form of solar power ever more viable in many states. An increasingly popular and practical method of integrating solar energy into the power of your home or business is through the use of building integrated solar photovoltaics.

5. Large independent photovoltaic systems. For those who have enough sun power at your site, you may be able to go off grid. It's also possible to integrate or hybridize your solar energy system with wind power or other forms of sustainable energy to stay 'off the grid.'

How can Photovoltaic panels work ?

Silicon is mounted beneath non-reflective glass to create photovoltaic panels. These panels collect photons from the sun, converting them into DC electrical energy. The energy created then flows into an inverter. The inverter transforms the power into basic voltage and AC electrical power.

Solar cells are prepared with particular materials called semiconductors for example silicon, which is presently the most generally used. When light hits the Photovoltaic cell, a particular share of it is absorbed inside the semiconductor material. This means that the energy of the absorbed light is given to the semiconductor.

The energy unfastens the electrons, permitting them to run freely. Solar power cells also have more than one electric fields that act to compel electrons unfastened by light absorption to flow in a specific direction. This flow of electrons is a current, and by introducing metal links on the top and bottom of the -Photovoltaic cell, the current can be drawn to use it externally.

Do you know the advantages and disadvantages of solar energy ?

Solar Pro Arguments

- Heating our homes with oil or natural gas or using electricity from power plants running with fossil fuels is a reason for global warming and climate disruption. Solar power, on the contrary, is clean and environmentally-friendly.

- Solar hot-water heaters require little maintenance, and their initial investment can be recovered in just a relatively small amount of time.

- Solar hot-water heaters can work in almost any climate, even in very cold ones. You just have to choose the right system for your climate: drainback, thermosyphon, batch-ICS, etc.

- Maintenance costs of solar powered systems are minimal and the warranties large.

- Financial incentives (USA, Canada, European states…) can aid in eliminating the cost of the first investment in solar technologies. The U.S. government, as an example, offers tax credits for solar systems certified by by the SRCC (Solar Rating and Certification Corporation), which amount to 30 percent of the investment (2009-2016 period).

Solar Cons Arguments

- The initial investment in Solar Hot water heaters or in Solar PV Electric Systems is greater than that required by conventional electric and gas heaters systems.

- The payback period of solar PV-electric systems is high, as well as those of solar space heating or solar cooling (only the solar domestic hot water heating payback is short or relatively short).

- Solar water heating do not support a direct combination with radiators (including baseboard ones).

- Some air conditioning (solar space heating and the solar cooling systems) are very pricey, and rather untested technologies: solar air conditioning isn't, till now, a really economical option.

- The efficiency of solar powered systems is rather influenced by sunlight resources. It's in colder climates, where heating or electricity needs are higher, that the efficiency is smaller.

About me - Barbara Young writes on solar power kits in her personal hobby website 12voltsolarpanels.net. Her work is devoted to helping people save energy using solar powered energy to eliminate CO2 emissions and energy dependency.

Biodiversity Education in Singapore (and probably the rest of Southeast Asia)

2009-05-13T12:34:00.001-07:00

In many respects education in Singapore is top-notch, especially in Mathematics and most sciences due to a great emphasis on the student mastering the basics of a subject. In recent times however, science has moved rapidly and is quickly becoming a large, interdisciplinary field where the lines between mathematics, physics, chemistry and biology are become very blurred.

This is especially important in biodiversity and conservation. Students are brought up in with the mindset of objectivity and a somewhat mistaken concept of the omission of a "human factor". Our students see science as cold and hard and this extends into the biology students, and the education of our biology students.

Biodiversity studies in the days gone by were relatively more straightforward and less bounded by various factors that we have to consider now. Dr. Terry Erwin fogged a forest to do a species survey. This obviously cannot be done now. Similarly, biodiversity conservation has moved on. Many Singaporean conservation students probably do not know this, but conservation of species was actually a concept started by big game hunters in order to ensure the continued survival of their big game targets. It may sound ironic, but effectively, it is not very different from sustainable fishing. Following the scramble for Africa, where European colonial powers carved up Africa for themselves, they set about establishing game reserves, or national parks for this purpose. This was the start of the so-called "fortress conservation" that we now know that is practiced all over Southeast Asia. Its basic concept is quite clearly stated as in the Wilderness Act of 1964 of the United States which says that "A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.". This means man is excluded from any reserves so designated to protect it's "wilderness".

But what does it actually mean to people in practice? One word: Eviction. Local tribes and "natives" are removed from their ancestral lands to fulfill an essentially Western concept of nature. This brings us to another term: nature. What is nature? How do we define nature? We see this term in many "nature blogs" including this one. Raymond Henry Williams a Welsh academic at Cambridge said that it is "perhaps the most complex word in the English language". Rebecca Solnit, prominent writer and cultural historian, said,"One way to guarantee a conversation without a conclusion is to ask a group of people what nature is". Interestingly however, indigenous peoples often have no concept of nature wilderness or biodiversity. Mark Dowie interviewed an Alaskan Yupik scientist and got this reply: "We have no concept of 'wilderness'. What you call 'wildnerness' we call our backyard. To us none of Alaska is wilderness defined by the 1964 Wilderness Act - a place without people. We are deeply insulted by that concept, as we are by the whole idea of 'wilderness designation' that too often excludes native Alaskans from ancestral lands". The nearest approximation in Yupik of "biodiversity" is "food". In Pima (Native Indians of Arizona and Mexico), the nearest approximation for "wilderness" is "health" or "wholeness".

I cannot help but feel that the coldness of the biology that is taught in Singapore is leaving us behind in conservation thought, at the the era of 1964. Conservation biology students have a hardnosed economics vs biodiversity mindset. No doubt that is important. However, anthropology is quickly assuming a role in conservation biology that our students have so far largely failed to take notice. Take for example 'slash-and-burn'. Singaporeans immediately think: haze, forest loss, animals running out of habitat. But how many realise that shifting 'slash-and-burn' or more correctly, swidden agriculture of native peoples actually create mosaics that improve the fire-resistance of the forests, that it reduces erosion rates of standard tilling and ploughing techniques of farming? Now, I am NOT defending the people who caused the haze, those were due to commercial farmers try to clear land quickly to plant cash crops and exhaust the land. We have to make the differentiation between materialist, commercial burning and subsistence, shifting swidden agriculture. Slash-and-burn do NOT always mean the haze, and people should stop calling for it to banned as they are the only livelihoods for some people who actually through doing so, and they enhance and have actually been actively and positively shaping biodiversity for thousands of years.

But we must be careful. We cannot say that we are condemning these people to a primitive life. A lot of times people and governments use this argument, but it is again a perspective of cold, hard numbers. People should be allowed to live their lives as their ancestral culture dictates. Besides, it is always wrong to evict people who have done no wrong except for living primitively - from a Western perspective. Turn the situation on its head. Imagine forest or nomadic cultures one say became militarily and scientifically strong while living in the forest. Would it be right for them to head out to France to pull down the Eiffel Tower or to London tear down city? Obviously not. We view the environment and landscape differently and we cannot assume we are always right.

Coming back to Singapore and biodiversity and conservation education, can the reader see what we are lacking now? I hope you do. If not, I will say it here: anthropology. The current system we have will allow us (although some people will dispute it) to produce good biodiversity scientists coming from a Western perspective. But until the system changes and students have to learn cultures and social perspectives of biodiversity and conservation of indigenous cultures, we will NEVER see a prominent, successful CONSERVATIONIST as it requires a balanced, global perspective. I leave everyone with a speech from Roy Sesana, a G//ana bushman elder from the Kalahari in Botswana which he made when he received the Right Livelihood Award from the Swedish Parliament in 2005 for the courageous fight he put up in trying to tell the world of his people's right to remain in their ancestral land.

"Right Livelihood Award address, Stockholm, December 2005

My name is Roy Sesana; I am a Gana Bushman from the Kalahari in what is now called Botswana. In my language, my name is Ã«Tobee' and our land is Ã«T//amm'. We have been there longer than any people has been anywhere.

When I was young, I went to work in a mine. I put off my skins and wore clothes. But I went home after a while. Does that make me less Bushman? I don't think so.

I am a leader. When I was a boy we did not need leaders and we lived well. Now we need them because our land is being stolen and we must struggle to survive. It doesn't mean I tell people what to do, it's the other way around: they tell me what I have to do to help them.

I cannot read. You wanted me to write this speech, so my friends helped, but I cannot read words - I'm sorry! But I do know how to read the land and the animals. All our children could. If they didn't, they would have all died long ago.

I know many who can read words and many, like me, who can only read the land. Both are important. We are not backward or less intelligent: we live in exactly the same up-to-date year as you. I was going to say we all live under the same stars, but no, they're different, and there are many more in the Kalahari. The sun and moon are the same.

I grew up a hunter. All our boys and men were hunters. Hunting is going and talking to the animals. You don't steal. You go and ask. You set a trap or go with bow or spear. It can take days. You track the antelope. He knows you are there, he knows he has to give you his strength. But he runs and you have to run. As you run, you become like him. It can last hours and exhaust you both. You talk to him and look into his eyes. And then he knows he must give you his strength so your children can live.

When I first hunted, I was not allowed to eat. Pieces of the steenbok were burnt with some roots and spread on my body. This is how I learned. It's not the same way you learn, but it works well.

The farmer says he is more advanced than the backward hunter, but I don't believe him. His herds give no more food than ours. The antelope are not our slaves, they do not wear bells on their necks and they can run faster than the lazy cow or the herder. We run through life together.

When I wear the antelope horns, it helps me talk to my ancestors and they help me. The ancestors are so important: we would not be alive without them. Everyone knows this in their heart, but some have forgotten. Would any of us be here without our ancestors? I don't think so.

I was trained as a healer. You have to read the plants and the sand. You have to dig the roots and become fit. You put some of the root back for tomorrow, so one day your grandchildren can find it and eat. You learn what the land tells you.

When the old die, we bury them and they become ancestors. When there is sickness, we dance and we talk to them; they speak through my blood. I touch the sick person and can find the illness and heal it.

We are the ancestors of our grandchildren's children. We look after them, just as our ancestors look after us. We aren't here for ourselves. We are here for each other and for the children of our grandchildren.

Why am I here? Because my people love their land, and without it we are dying. Many years ago, the president of Botswana said we could live on our ancestral land forever. We never needed anyone to tell us that. Of course we can live where God created us! But the next president said we must move and began forcing us away.

They said we had to go because of diamonds. Then they said we were killing too many animals: but that's not true. They say many things which aren't true. They said we had to move so the government could develop us. The president says unless we change we will perish like the dodo. I didn't know what a dodo was. But I found out: it was a bird which was wiped out by settlers. The president was right. They are killing us by forcing us off our land. We have been tortured and shot at. They arrested me and beat me.

Thank you for the Right Livelihood Award. It is global recognition of our struggle and will raise our voice throughout the world. When I heard I had won I had just been let out of prison. They say I am a criminal, as I stand here today.

I say what kind of development is it when the people live shorter lives than before? They catch HIV/AIDS. Our children are beaten in school and won't go there. Some become prostitutes. They are not allowed to hunt. They fight because they are bored and get drunk. They are starting to commit suicide. We never saw that before. It hurts to say this. Is this Ã«development'?

We are not primitive. We live differently to you, but we do not live exactly like our grandparents did, nor do you. Were your ancestors Ã«primitive'? I don't think so. We respect our ancestors. We love our children. This is the same for all people.

We now have to stop the government stealing our land: without it we will die.

If anyone has read a lot of books and thinks I am primitive because I have not read even one, then he should throw away those books and get one which says we are all brothers and sisters under God and we too have a right to live.

That is all. Thank you."

*Note: He is not Christian, he made the speech in native language and this was the best translation in English.

Stuff!

2009-03-24T12:26:00.000-07:00

Actually this is just a place for my stuff, ya know? That's all, a little place for my stuff. That's all I want, that's all you need in life, is a little place for your stuff, ya know? I can see it on your table, everybody's got a little place for their stuff. This is my stuff, that's your stuff, that'll be his stuff over there. That's all you need in life, a little place for your stuff. That's all your house is: a place to keep your stuff. If you didn't have so much stuff, you wouldn't need a house. You could just walk around all the time.

A house is just a pile of stuff with a cover on it. You can see that when you're taking off in an airplane. You look down, you see everybody's got a little pile of stuff. All the little piles of stuff. And when you leave your house, you gotta lock it up. Wouldn't want somebody to come by and take some of your stuff. They always take the good stuff. They never bother with that crap you're saving. All they want is the shiny stuff. That's what your house is, a place to keep your stuff while you go out and get...more stuff!

Sometimes you gotta move, gotta get a bigger house. Why? No room for your stuff anymore. Did you ever notice when you go to somebody else's house, you never quite feel a hundred percent at home? You know why? No room for your stuff. Somebody else's stuff is all over the goddamn place! And if you stay overnight, unexpectedly, they give you a little bedroom to sleep in. Bedroom they haven't used in about eleven years. Someone died in it, eleven years ago. And they haven't moved any of his stuff! Right next to the bed there's usually a dresser or a bureau of some kind, and there's NO ROOM for your stuff on it. Somebody else's shit is on the dresser.

Have you noticed that their stuff is shit and your shit is stuff? God! And you say, "Get that shit offa there and let me put my stuff down!"

Sometimes you leave your house to go on vacation. And you gotta take some of your stuff with you. Gotta take about two big suitcases full of stuff, when you go on vacation. You gotta take a smaller version of your house. It's the second version of your stuff. And you're gonna fly all the way to Honolulu. Gonna go across the continent, across half an ocean to Honolulu. You get down to the hotel room in Honolulu and you open up your suitcase and you put away all your stuff. "Here's a place here, put a little bit of stuff there, put some stuff here, put some stuff--you put your stuff there, I'll put some stuff--here's another place for stuff, look at this, I'll put some stuff here..." And even though you're far away from home, you start to get used to it, you start to feel okay, because after all, you do have some of your stuff with you. That's when your friend calls up from Maui, and says, "Hey, why don'tchya come over to Maui for the weekend and spend a couple of nights over here."

Oh, no! Now what do I pack? Right, you've gotta pack an even SMALLER version of your stuff. The third version of your house. Just enough stuff to take to Maui for a coupla days. You get over to Maui--I mean you're really getting extended now, when you think about it. You got stuff ALL the way back on the mainland, you got stuff on another island, you got stuff on this island. I mean, supply lines are getting longer and harder to maintain. You get over to your friend's house on Maui and he gives you a little place to sleep, a little bed right next to his windowsill or something. You put some of your stuff up there. You put your stuff up there. You got your Visine, you got your nail clippers, and you put everything up. It takes about an hour and a half, but after a while you finally feel okay, say, "All right, I got my nail clippers, I must be okay." That's when your friend says, "Aaaaay, I think tonight we'll go over the other side of the island, visit a pal of mine and maybe stay over."

Aww, no. NOW what do you pack? Right--you gotta pack an even SMALLER version of your stuff. The fourth version of your house. Only the stuff you know you're gonna need. Money, keys, comb, wallet, lighter, hanky, pen, smokes, rubber and change. Well, only the stuff you HOPE you're gonna need.

(All material written and owned by George Carlin)

The Girl Who Silenced the World for 5 mins

2009-03-08T07:06:00.000-07:00

A coursemate forwarded this to me, and I thought it's one of the best clips ever to appear on Youtube. It features Severn Cullis-Suzuki, at the age of 12, speaking at the United Nations Earth Summit at Rio de Janeiro in 1992 (that was where the Convention on Biodiversity was signed). Watch it, and think about what you were doing at 12, and if you are way past 12, what are you doing now?

Crocodile Post on STOMP

2009-03-04T10:39:00.000-08:00

I read this post on STOMP, which basically was about this Singaporean who went to a Johor crocodile farm, and "learnt" stuff from the farm's owner. I quote the following from the post:

""The crocodile has no tongue and according to the farm owner, Mr Ng, it has 72 teeth which can even snap off your leg if you are within reach of its mouth."

Correction #1: The crocodile HAS a tongue. It is attached by a membrane to the bottom of its mouth so it's movement is limited and sometimes looks like it has no tongue. In fact for these estuarine (i.e. saltwater) crocodiles, the tongue is one of it's most important organs because it has salt glands to excrete the salt that gets into its physiology from it's saltwater environment in the wild.

Correction #2: Estuarine crocodiles have 64-68 teeth. Not 72. Firstly, there isn't a fixed value, and secondly, 72 is a bit high.

I suppose the STOMPer wouldn't have known better, but it's disturbing that supposed "experts" give dodgy information.

E-hoot for Dr. Jane Goodall

2009-02-27T09:26:00.000-08:00

Dr. Jane Goodall will be 75 this April 3rd (And she still occasionally visits the field!). The Jane Goodall Institute has set up a webpage for an E-hoot (E-card, but chimps hoot, and so it will be an E-hoot for her). Anyone who would like to send her your greetings please do so at this link, and watch the great video there.

Send Dr. Goodall your birthday wishes!

http://www.janegoodall.org/splash/landing-JaneBdayRS.asp

We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children

2009-02-25T14:07:00.000-08:00

There is a often used proverb, by David Brower "We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children" (and no, it is not a native Indian proverb that many people think it is), which can be found in numerous conservation articles. Today, Dr. Jane Goodall gave a lecture here in Oxford, and this is what she said:

"Someone said that we do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, but borrow it from out children. Look at the world around us. The line is a lie! We aren't borrowing from our children. Borrowing means that we will pay it back, but we aren't paying back. We are STEALING from our children...."

This is the second time I've sat in on Dr. Goodall's lecture, and again she hits me with something new to think about. Give it a ponder in the Singapore context. Parents work hard, spend a lot on luxuries (for themselves and their children), driving consumption through the roof. These parents are thinking they are giving their children good lives, and ingraining in them values of materialism, so that their children will plunder whatever's left from their grandchildren. Dr. Goodall also went on to say:

"We shouldn't be stealing from our future generations. We haven't paid them back yet, but we should."

And so it must be. Think about it. Are you stealing your (whether born or not) children's future? Are you willing to pay it back? Are we willing to be the generation that will shoulder the responsibility of collectively paying back for the generations past that have now returned to the soil?

On a brighter note, Dr. Goodall mentioned to me in the little bit of time we spoke, that she will be in Singapore this June! Watch this space for details of the possibility of events and lectures that might be available!

Carrying Capacity and Singapore

2009-02-01T12:18:00.000-08:00

I remember reading with great interest some forum with regards to population size, and carrying capacity with regards to Singapore.

For the technically uninclined, here's the definitions for the key word.
Carrying capacity: The maximum population size that can be supported by the available resources, symbolised as K. (Campbell and Reece, 2005)

The forum page had someone try to calculate the carrying capacity of Singapore using area size (680 sq kilometres or 168,032 acres roughly) and the average area of land required to feed an average American (something like 1.5 acres). So that gives a figure of K=112,021 people that Singapore can support. Given that the Singapore Government is targetting 6 million to sustain long-term economic growth, the post then asserts that the population of Singapore will plunge by more than 90%. This is very alarmist. The problem is far more complex than the writer thinks. Global carryng capacity for humans lies around 10-15 billion (depending on who's calculation you look at). And given the way we import our food, effective land use in this aspect for Singapore is actually far bigger than the actual land area of Singapore itself. However, all these calculations should not be taken too seriously.

Carrying capacity is a snapshot number. It is dependent upon many factors, like technology and efficiency, production and consumption, and the interactions between the biotic and abiotic factors in the environment (Arrow et al., 1995). A single technological innovation in primary production may significantly raise carrying capacity, just as a single comet hitting the Earth will significantly reduce carrying capacity.

The example of the collapse of the Roman population in the ancient times was also cited, but these were self-sustaining, agricultural populations, a period of time which technology very much infantile, way before innovations like the Haber process.

Perhaps we should look at other indicators. How much of global terrestrial primary production is taken by humans. It's actually around 40% (Vitousek et al.), and probably rising due to forest and arable land loss due to poor farming practices, and an exponentially increasing human population and the accompanying increase in consumption. Now that statistic makes more sense, and should make people sit up and take notice.

How do we relate the 10-15 billion carrying capacity and the disproportionate amount of primary production we consume given we're only halfway, or less to the limit? I think here, perhaps it is useful to recall again that the carrying capacity number is a snapshot number, done using curves and models of the current situation (or the situation as of the calculation). One thing that mathematical models cannot predict is preference, and the human desire for excess. People are not content with enough. They want 'more than enough'. Everyone wants to consume at the rate of Bill Gates and Hollywood celebrities. That is one of the main problems. As the human population increases, and the corresponding number of people having such desires, and a good number of them working towards and 'achieving' these targets, the scenarios start to change. Mathematical parameters change, and the carrying capacity is slashed because what society deems as enough is actually ecologically excessive. Couple that with the exponential increase in human population, then it might seem that the two limits are racing towards each other.

At this point in time, it's not the end of the world. A 90% drop in population for Singapore is way off the target for now, while the current estimates of carrying capacity remain relatively high up. However, we should not try to meet carrying capacity. In fact, the further away we are from carrying capacity the better. There must be a significant buffer between the two points. We could go about it by working on both points. Raise the carrying capacity, and reduce the rate of human population increase. People should control and bring down the upper limits of consumption, so more resources are freed up and this can actually increase carrying capacity. Nations with disproportionate increase in populations should also watch their birth rates. If not for ecological reasons, then for humanitarian reasons, as often, these are areas where poverty levels are relatively high.

So how does Singapore fit in all this? 6 million people seems a lot for an island nation like ours, especially during rush hour in the MRT trains, but the effective terrestrial land use area for things like food production and energy resource extend the area far beyond her sovereign boundaries. Singapore is technologically advanced, with a top notch sanitary infrastructure (I know coffee shops leave a lot to be desired but at least the flushing works and it's not a hole in the ground). As such, carry capacity for Singapore in effect could be very high indeed. HOWEVER, that said, our problem, like much of humanity, is that we still require a massive shift in mindset in terms of our consumption and our attitudes towards nature, biodiversity, conservation and their balance against economic growth and well-being.

References:
Campbell, N.A and Reece, J.B. (2005) Biology. 7th Edn. Pearson Education Inc.

Arrow, K., Bolin, B., Costanza, R., Dasgupta, P., Folke, C., Holling, C.S., Bengt-Jansson, B-O., Levin, S., Maler, K.G., Perrings, C., and Pimentel, D. (1995) Economic Growth, Carrying Capacity and the Environment. Science 268: 520-521

Vitousek, P.M., Ehrlich, P.R., Ehrlich, A.H., and Matson, P.A. (1986) Human Appropriation of the Products of Photosynthesis. BioScience 36: 368-380

Treating the Symptom but Not the Root?

2008-09-23T21:58:00.000-07:00

The BBC website posted this article today, "'Climate-proof' crop hunt begins".

The idea of the whole project was to produce cultivars of crop plants that will be able to cope with impacts from climate change, and that crops must "..must produce more food, on the same amount of land, with less water, and more expensive energy".

However, is this the right way to approach the climate-change problem? Does this step give administrations more time and excuse to delay setting or meeting emissions targets, since food resources would have become "more secure"? It smacks of short-sightedness as far as I am concerned. Humans have gotten ourselves, and a large proportion of other lifeforms on Earth in trouble BECAUSE of the way we live, and BECAUSE of this "治标不治本" mentality (Treating the symptoms but not the root). It is very likely that too many humans are living in their isolation bubbles with no understanding and appreciation of geography and ecology (E.O Wilson agrees with me on that). So what if the experiment succeeds? People will continue to overconsume and overpopulate such that the results of the experiment would soon be overwhelmed. And then what? Produce an even more "super" super-crop? Where is the limit? Where do we draw the line? How about doing things the more painful (in the short run) but more sustainable (in the long run) way? Amazing revolutions and large-scale changes in the history of mankind have almost always resulted from us being forced into a corner and having out backs to walls. Instead of trying to escape the reality and gravity of the climate change situation, why don't we take a leaf out of the ancient military strategy books and adopt a 破釜沉舟 way (Basically it means to remove all forms of retreat and escape so there is no choice but to face the problem)? Would that not be better?

Reaction to article

2008-06-02T09:18:00.000-07:00

I read this article with some interest.

The part that made me scribble this little post is this:

"Wayne Pacelle, president of the Humane Society of the United States, said measuring hormone levels may not tell the story as well as observing listless or repetitive behavior."

Stress hormone levels are the best indicators of stress as behaviours are the result of biochemistry and physiology of the animal. The animal would not show signs of stress without increased cortisol levels driving such behaviours. Mr Pacelle received his training in History and Environmental Studies, so he might need to be a little more open to physiological studies. The pacing comment was especially interesting, because it showed that repetitive behaviour is not necessarily equivalent to stress, because the physiology does not match up. This is one great example how animal biology should work, biochemistry and physiology and all the other facets like behaviour, etc, must be integrated to give us a full picture of the situation. What we feel is happening just by viewing is just that, our feeling. Which very often, is wrong.

Battle at Kruger National Park

2008-05-25T01:49:00.000-07:00

Amazing, amazing video captured by tourists, and it won a National Geographic award. It's almost a whole ecology and evolutionary biology lesson in this video. Now watch it here!

(For some irritating reason, there's no embedding)

Comments on Summary of Survey Results on Biological Conservation Attitudes

2008-05-15T02:38:00.000-07:00

I just read the survey results here.

One particular result was quite interesting, with SOC apparently having the most pro-conservation students.

Some of comments, hopefully the student who did the survey won't take offense at me taking such liberties with his/her work.

Finding 1: Students had similar conservation attitudes for plant species, animal species or natural habitats and did not value any one more over the other.

Comment: This is something that I realised a little while back, that people who weren't biologists but were pro-conservation often promote conserving everything. It would be interesting to find if it was because they didn't know enough to have a target. On the other hand, biologists often have a "target" group to conserve, and have come up with the idea of "flagship species". The basic idea is to save whole habitats to protect the flagship species and in doing so protect everything else living there as well. In reality, governments often play a trading game. Trade the survival of one species, and compromise another, species more abundant at that point in time. So is the "ignorant" way better? Or the "flagship species" model?

Finding 2: Students were more likely to exhibit private conservation behaviours than public conservation behaviours.

Comment: Singaporeans ma. Prefer to do stuff while taking cover in a foxhole. Nothing wrong though, except maybe through public conservation efforts, the inspiration component is more emphasised.

Finding 3: Students from the income groups with less than $4,000 per month or more than $8,000 per month, had more pro-conservation attitudes compared to students from the $4,000–8,000 group.

Comment: This is to be expected I guess, but I think it speaks quite a bit about the ideas that society in general has about conservation. Conservation is probably seen as something "extra", as money goes in without a visible, tangible profit. It is quite complex, where different attitudes to economics of the lower, middle and upper classes (by financial powers) come into the play. But it can be a bit too abrasive to discuss, so I shal leave it at that.

Finding 4: Students who are taking or had previously taken conservation-related modules had more pro-conservation attitudes than those who have not.

Comment: Conservation education has the wonderful advantage of being able to move people, probably because it has a "soft" side to it. Unlike other things, like say, organic chemistry or mathematics or other "hard" subjects, where people can actually hate and reject, as they become educated in it.

Finding 5: Students who are from the School of Computing have more pro-conservation attitudes than average; while students from the Business School have less pro-conservation attitudes than average (see below).

Comment: What a surprise! Although I must say that for some other faculties, I think they do conform to their stereotype.

Pesticide DDT Shows Up in Antarctic Penguins

2008-05-11T07:10:00.000-07:00

"By Deborah Zabarenko, Environment Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The pesticide DDT, banned decades ago in much of the world, still shows up in penguins in Antarctica, probably due to the chemical's accumulation in melting glaciers, a sea bird expert said on Friday.

Adelie penguins, known for their waddling gait and a habit of nesting on stones, have long shown evidence of DDT in their fatty tissues, although not in enough concentration to hurt the birds, according to Heidi Geisz of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science.

But researchers were surprised to see that the level of the pesticide in Adelies' fat had not declined, even after DDT was banned for exterior use in the 1970s in the United States and elsewhere.

First noted in 1964, while the chemical was still widely used, the amount of DDT found in Adelie penguins rose in the 1970s and has stayed stable since then, Geisz said in a telephone interview.

In findings published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology, Geisz and her colleagues noted that persistent organic pollutants like DDT accumulate and become concentrated in the Antarctic ecosystem.

"DDT, along with a lot of other of these organic contaminants, actually travel through the atmosphere ... toward the polar regions by a process of evaporation and then condensation in cooler climates," Geisz said, explaining this is how the pesticide got deposited in Antarctic glaciers.

DDT declined dramatically in Arctic wildlife over the last decade, while the amount of the chemical in Antarctic Adelies stayed stable, the study said.

DDT was easily detectable in glacier melt water, Geisz said.

FOOD CHAIN

Adelies feed off tiny creatures called krill that live in melted glacier water, and DDT is transmitted up the food chain directly to the penguins.

There is not enough of the chemical to harm the birds, but it is measurable in samples of penguin corpses and their abandoned eggs, Geisz said.

Some kinds of birds that ingest DDT, especially birds of prey like the American bald eagle, produce eggs with extremely thin shells which are easily crushed by adult birds. Geisz said this has not been demonstrated to be the case with sea birds.

A more pressing issue for the Adelie penguins that breed on the Antarctic Peninsula is encroaching climate change, she said. The peninsula, which stretches north toward South America, has been warming much faster than the rest of the continent.

Warming on the peninsula means "we see more snow and more moisture and these (Adelie) eggs end up getting soaked and frozen," Geisz said. "It allows opportunities for people like me to study the eggs, but it's not necessarily ideal for the penguins."

Originally developed as a powerful multi-species pesticide, DDT was used in World War Two to clear South Pacific islands of malaria-causing insects for U.S. troops and in Europe as a de-lousing powder. The United States banned the chemical in 1972. The World Health Organization approved it in 2006 for use indoors to fight malaria."

Kinda makes you wonder how much more human produced rubbish are being released from the melting glaciers. Of course, it would be unrealistic expect WHO to not allow DDT in fighting malaria, but it also means that we need to educate people about malaria prevention, and dangers of mosquito-breeding indoors.

The Truth Makes Things Difficult, But Untruths Can Be Fatal

2008-04-05T10:11:00.000-07:00

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.

Earth Hour and Coal-fired Power Plants

2008-04-03T03:38:00.000-07:00

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.

Love of Nature from Parents

2008-03-20T08:57:00.000-07:00

I love reading, and especially love the feeling you get when the author makes a point so powerful, you feel like a train just ran over you. Here's an excerpt from Dr. Jane Goodall's book, Reason for Hope. It's a story that she's told time and again, whenever you attend her lectures, about her trying to find how how chickens lay their eggs as a child. In summary, she had hidden herself in the chicken coop for 4 hours at least, waiting for a hen to enter and lay an egg, while elsewhere, her family (especially her mother Vanne) were in hysterics, thinking that she had gone missing and had even made a police report. The following excerpt describes what happens after she had observed the egg-laying.

"Filled with excitement I squeezed out after her and ran home. It was almost dark--I had been in that small stuffy henhouse for nearly four hours. I was oblivious of the fact that no one had known where I was, and that the whole household had been searching for me. They had even called the police to report me missing. Yet despite her worry, when Vanne, still searching, saw the excited little girl rushing toward the house, she did not scold me. She noticed my shining eyes and sat down to listen to the story of how a hen lays an egg: the wonder of that moment when the egg finally fell to the ground.

Certainly I was lucky to be provided with a mother wise enough to nurture and encourage my love of living things and my passion for knowledge. Most important was her philosophy that her children should always try their very best. How would I have turned out, I sometimes wonder, had I grown up in a house that stifled enterprise by imposing harsh and senseless discipline. Or in an atmosphere of overindulgence, in a household where there were no rules, no boundaries drawn. My mother certainly understood the importance of discipline, but she always explained why some things were not allowed. Above all, she tried to be fair and to be consistent."

It really set me thinking, about parents in general here in Singapore. I have often seen that when children go missing and then found again, parents just whack them. No questions asked. No thought given to the fear, or excitement of discovery, such as in Jane's case, experienced by the child. Imagine Vanne had been one of such parents. Would there have been a Dr. Jane Goodall, the Jane Goodall Institute and everything that she has done? If we really thought deeply, all of those things, inspiration to us and people like me, the survival and profound ethology of chimps and the livelihood that she has made possible for thousands in Tanzania, all of those might have hinged on that one reaction by Vanne when Jane reappeared, and thank goodness for what did happen.

Conservation, and nature in Singapore, I feel suffers from a desperate lack of parental guidance. Sure there are a bunch of parents who bring their children to guided walks and things like that, but a vast majority bring their children up on a diet of materialism, and the belief that humans do not need wildlife (both plants and animals) for survival. Zoologists and botanists are conventionally thought of as biology students who cannot make it to medicine. How many parents out there wholeheartedly support their children when they say they want to study zoology instead of business or medicine or law? We need a massive change in mindsets.

Shopping to Save the Earth?

2008-03-18T09:40:00.000-07:00

I've been meaning to blog about this but I just have been too caught up with tests and thesis submission. Anyhow, I am referring to Compass Point's claim that it's shoppers can "Save Planet Earth" simply by shopping there. . Let's try and dissect the poster.

First, it says, if the shopper spends $20, he/she can "Share" eco-friendly tips. Apparently the "best" tip wins the shopper $120. The greatest irony is this: The best eco-friendly tip in reality is to stop mass-consumerism, shopping, and advertising. I'd be damned if that won you anything.

Going down the poster, it says "Learn to be Green", and by attaching a loan receipt of four books from Sengkang Community Library to any $20 receipt, it wins the shopper a monopoly set, and a chance at %100 Metro vouchers. First of all, it seems they left the learning to be green part to the shopper, without specifying the type of books. Heck, he could borrow 4 books along the lines of "How to destroy Planet Earth in 5 minutes" and still win everything on offer. In any case, Singaporeans being Singaporeans, they'd probably just borrow books for the Monopoly set. And it still doesn't address the consumerism problem.

The next three seem to look a little friendlier, but two of them still require you to spend. And honestly, "Saving Planet Earth" is a load of bull. Planet Earth would do well without us. More like saving ourselves. These corporate people should get their perspectives right.

Now we look at the wordy parts. "Carry it green at Compass Point". Apparently, you spend $30 dollars and get a free Compass Point Shopping Bag. So if you spend below $30 you don't qualify to join the Compass Point (Pseudo) Environment Club huh.

"Shop and Learn How You Can Save Planet Earth". And then it says you get a free $5 voucher when you spend $100, I think with that Compass Point Shopping bag. I honestly don't see the link between the title and it's description. Labelling everything green out of desperation I suppose.

"Lucky Green Dips". Instant lucky dip with $50 spent. How's that green again?

"Going Green Saves You More". Even more bizzare stuff. It says, bring your own carriers or containers to enjoy offers from some participating outlets. And then one of the outlets is Best Denki. IF you buy refridgerators. Sure, my Compass Point Shopping Bag can fit THOSE. CITIGEMS are participating too, and you get a diamond pendant at a hugely discounted price. Point number one. There is no such thing as a green diamond / precious metal mining company. Number two. Retailers don't discount at such rates unless they are sure they are still earning from it. Too bad to those who bought these lumps of metal and carbon at their original prices.

The one that takes the cake though, is the Grand Prize of their lucky draw. You get a CAR!! Spend all the money to be green, then burn it all away with the petrol! How smart!

In a nutshell. It's a scam. CASE should get on their backs. Token effort is given about being green, and it's just a bandwagon to jump on to generate sales of ignorant people who want to be on the same bandwagon with little effort. This a blatant attempt to DELIBERATELY mislead shoppers. There no way to shop to your way to "green-ness". Unless you are shopping to buy forest patches to protect. Which Compass Point and their Frasers Centrepoint management have obviously no interest in. It's like "Buy more cigarettes and learn how to prevent lung cancer!". Bunch of bull excreta.

Educate her? She knows!

2008-02-28T04:55:00.000-08:00

I refer to the letter on the Straits Times Forum Online posted below:

Feeding wildlife: Educate uninformed adults

I APPLAUD recent measures to punish those who feed wildlife in public parks.
I was at the Singapore Zoo last Friday with my young son and came upon a girl, perhaps no more than 10 years old, feeding twigs to the goats at Children's World, the children's section of the zoo.

Next to her was her mother and a prominent sign that reads 'No feeding'.

I gently reminded the woman of the notice board. Her retort? 'Everybody feeds the animals'.

Her child continued to feed the goat, which was lapping up whatever she was picking up from the ground. This clueless child will unfortunately grow up thinking her behaviour is perfectly acceptable.

The innocent child was not at fault. The parent, an educated adult, should have known better.

What more can be done when harsh penalties have been meted out on obstinate offenders?

More aggressive education is key, perhaps to both school-going children and misguided, uninformed adults.

Koh Wee Hoon (Ms)

I think Ms Koh is too kind. First of all, if you are a Singapore student of age 10 and cannot read and understand "No Feeding", then something is seriously wrong. Secondly, if everyone was doing something, it doesn't mean that it's the right thing.
Third, where were the zookeepers? Fourth, why didn't more people point her out? This reminds me of something Martin Luther King Junior once said, "We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence of the good people". The world is going to pot, precisely because of this.

Does the zoo have some kind of punishment for these? Feeding animals where you aren't allowed to feed them, and running the risk of feeding the wrong things to them should be dealt with as the equivalent of animal abuse (and if you ask me, the penalties for animal abuse isn't quite severe enough). Parents who blatantly ignore the signs should be fined on the spot. Children who see their parents ignore the rules and laws may grow up to believe that either their parents are above the law, or that some laws can be violated. Cutting their parents down to size would go along way to enforcing to children that the signs cannot be ignored.

Criminal Education?

2008-02-17T07:51:00.000-08:00

This post is in reference to Joe Lai's post, Embracing Nature Conservation: How?.

Dave Santucci wrote a short article about the inspirational powers of being in close contact with animals. I won't disagree with him. As someone who is out in the field relatively often, I know how it feels to be up-close and personal with members of other species, be they crocodiles or platyhelminthes.

However, to have to hold animals captive in an area that isn't even 0.1% of their original range is a different thing altogether. If done on humans, it is called unlawful confinement, except in mental asylums and prisons, because they are considered the lower end of society. Mr. Santucci has assumed that humans are different, are on a higher level. Isn't that being elitist?

People still have not understood the difference between appreciating the whale sharks and dolphins for their presence in the wild, and appreciating whale sharks and dolphins as toys. What the aquariums possibly promote is appreciation of the animals as toys. We make them do tricks, and ride them like the kiddy machines that mothers put 50cents into to keep their kids entertained for two minutes. If someone forced another person to learn and perform tricks on command, it's called forced labour and violation of human rights.

While I have mentioned that I am continually inspired by contacts I make with wildlife while doing field work, my love for nature, and wildlife came from reading, fighting spiders and catching grasshoppers as a kid, and unlike what Mr. Santucci would like to believe, from the television. Has he wondered why we use the term “wildlife”? These are majestic creatures born to be wild, free, away from urban, human organisation and oppression. Appreciation of nature must come through responsible education, not education “by hook or by crook”. When we want to learn French (or whatever) culture and language, we do a French immersion programme. We don't go to France and kidnap a Frenchman. The same principle applies to the Whale Sharks.

Man's Greatest Mistake

2008-02-04T00:20:00.001-08:00

I never thought one of the random conclusions I make when I am thinking to myself could actually be (sort-of) supported by a renowned academic. You see, normally I read, and what the brainy people say kind of influences me, so this coincidence really kind of struck me. So what was that controversial conclusion? Here it is: Agriculture is the root of all evils and problems that humans are facing (well one of the roots, at least).

I should elaborate. Agriculture is considered to be essential to our lives. It provides us with our nutritional requirements. It allows civilizations to feed millions of hungry mouths. It’s become so deeply rooted in our mindsets that when we find resource problems, more often than not, we ask if agriculture can help (think biofuels from palm and other rubbish along those lines). Heck, some even wish money grew on trees! Looking at that, agriculture should be good right? WRONG! It’s not! In fact, it’s evil, and mankind is so hopelessly stuck in this situation, we can’t hope to get out of it for the next 20 generations, or we destroy ourselves because Mother Earth decides to purge humankind, whichever comes first.

Putting all your eggs in one basket

The history of “civilized” mankind has been marked by numerous famines due to crop failures. Agriculture is one of the great examples of putting all your eggs in one basket. Sure, you can plant corn and potatoes and whatever plant that can be grown, but when the drought comes, it’s placing like your basket of eggs (maybe different types of eggs signifying different crop types) with a weasel – they’d all be gone. Then what happens? Famine, death and disease. With the current severe winter going on in China, Japan and Europe, we might see this repeat itself all over again. Of course, the problem can be alleviated a little by having stores and stockpiles, but it doesn’t really solve the problem, does it?

Agriculture resulted in the flourishing of human cultures, or does it?

The advent of agriculture has been deemed to be one the events in the history of man that allowed cultures to develop, because supposedly, it allows people time to think, where the “savage” hunter-gatherers would be running around the whole day trying to find food. I believe that is widely off the mark. The Inuit are still hunter-gatherers, so too the Kalahari bushmen. Dare we say they do not have a culture? Or that we have a superior culture? With regards to time, the bushmen spend a maximum of 19 hours a week gathering food only. Compare that with the farmers, especially here in Asia, where it is considered a virtue to be in the fields from daybreak to sunset (hardworking or just plain inefficient?). The amount of leisure time is a no-go argument right from the beginning. Hunter-gatherers had even more free time than the farmers.

Health

Another argument put forth by many is that agriculture allowed the improvement of nutrition for humans. However, by now, we all know that most of agriculture is skewed towards carbohydrate-rich crops like potato, rice, wheat, etc., and certain meat and milk producing livestock, e.g. cattle, sheep, goat. Modern diets are lacking in variety. These in turn limit the nutritional values of our diet. In Asia, people cannot do without rice (not me though) but rice itself, besides being a carbohydrate source, really has much of little else. Including things like Vitamin A, which was found to be lacking in the rural poor (farmers) in India, and there had to be a Golden Rice Project to try and fix the problem (see, agriculture again). In fact, paleontologists have found that rather than indicators proving good health, like longer life and bigger build, early farmers had a smaller build and appeared to live shorter and were disease-riddled. The phenomenon of size has still not recovered, as modern Mediterranean populations, like the Greeks, Turks, and Italians, are still considerably smaller sized that their hunter-gatherer ancestors.

Agriculture also meant that populations have had to be clustered where resources are, in order to have access to them. The increase in population and livestock densities thus results in the easy spread of disease, like tuberculosis, (bird) flu, etc. (By the way, I believe that bird flu is firmly the fault of farming, and not fault should be put upon migratory birds.) The clustering and the emphasis on storage of food and resources also resulted in another evil.

War

As agriculture gained importance, so did the necessity of fertile, arable land. The lack of such land will bring down any agricultural city state, and in order to get more land, a population cluster would have to expand, until they meet another population cluster, and tensions would rise. More often than not, the overwhelming desire for more land would result in the invasion and annexation of the lands of other populations. It is the same with any resource that is land-locked. Like oil. This doesn’t happen often with hunter-gatherer communities, as they are often nomadic tribes. The less physical people resorted to economics, but as the Chinese say, trade-zones are no different from war-zones.

Overpopulation

Well as many of us attest, the world is overpopulated. This is a result of agriculture too. Instead of a large forest with good food scattered through the area, we have now grown a lot of not-so-good food in a smaller plot of land, and exchanged quality for quantity. Nonetheless, it means that people are now able to feed more mouths, and so they they reproduce at an increasing rate. The limitations on quantity of food have been shown to limit the population growth rate in hunter-gatherer populations to a new child every 4 years, versus one every 2 years, in agricultural societies. This is because hunter-gatherer mothers had to raise a child until he or she is old and strong enough to keep up with the adults, something which is not necessary in a farming community where the family or population is much less mobile.

Class Divisions

Hunter-gatherers do not have stores of food. Essentially, they ate what they had gathered or hunted, and so there was no concentration, or “wealth”. Where there is a concentration of resources attached to individuals, then there are bound to be social “parasites”, like kings, and governments, which tax people, because there is a gain in doing so. You can’t tax people when they have nothing to tax from, and even harder when because you can’t bully similarly strong people as you into listening. On the other hand, in farming communities, it becomes possible for a small group of healthier elites to rule over the weaker masses, basically by bullying them into submission. Nevertheless, one hundred weak, hungry people can still overpower one healthy person, and so, social upheavals are commonplace in such societies (Also because everyone wants to sit and get fat while doing nothing).

The paper that I just saw that was similar was written in 1987 by UCLA academic, Professor Jared Diamond. The essay, “The Worst History in the History of the Human Race” (Discover – May 1987, pp. 64-66) is available online and you can get it just by googling around. He has just about the same points but he had a different order of thought, and he also mentioned sexual discrimination against women, which is an interesting point.

Agriculture is now probably an irreversible part of our lives. We cannot do without it anymore, at least in the next 20 generations. It has contributed in some good sense (we still get food after all), but is part of the problem as well. The over-reliance on agriculture has resulted in the over-reliance on chemical fertilizers, pesticides and economics. We humans have basically screwed ourselves. However, we are the only species that have the ability to reflect, come up with solutions, and convince ourselves to endure certain pains in lifestyle changes (although we haven’t evolve to WANT to use that ability), and our species might still get away with it. We need to reduce our population that is for sure, as there are too many mouths to feed, even with agriculture. What would the future be like? Stay tuned, and find out, 20 generations from now.

Not Everything Can be Priced

2008-01-24T20:43:00.000-08:00

I read “Economics don offers unique perspective on Nature Conservation” in the “Battle for Singapore’s Green Spaces Blog” and it’s really infuriating. This is coming from one of the people being consulted by Singapore’s government ministries and statutory boards.

He, on the flawed basis that “Nothing is free” proposes auctioning the forests like the one in Mandai, to decide if the land should be developed. The extremely flimsy way of calculation makes no sense at all. There is no way in hell that the amount calculated from surveying so-called “stake-holders” will beat the price offered by developers (henceforth termed “destroyers”). If anything, it might allow them to escape with destroying forests at a lower price! Perhaps that is what Professor Quah would like to see? Buildings everywhere, with the only greenery being roadside trees?

He assumes that he is a more “educated” person than other Singaporeans (arrogant or ignorant?). What does he know of ecology? Of climatology? Has he considered the quality of the air we breathe when we are shorn of all forests? How that would affect our drainages? Would that drive investors away? It seems that in his ideal world, there would be no forests, no animals, no other forms of life apart from Homo sapiens and destroyers running everywhere offering more and more money for more destruction projects.

Taking this outside of Singapore, destroyers have cleared mangroves (number one target for economists like him, muddy, and smelling of Hydrogen Sulphide, and apparently costly to leave alone) and mined corals (to make lime for construction of buildings) in Sri Lanka. Christmas Eve of 2004, a tsunami hit and everything was wiped out. That tsumani took between 30,000 and 40,000 lives in Sri Lanka displaced 2.5 million others. In contrast, Bangladesh, with miles and miles of undeveloped mangroves reported a grand total of 2 deaths. In the Tamil Nadu village of Naluvedapathy, villagers had earlier planted a forest of 80,244 casuarina trees, which broke up the waves and only 7 deaths and “no psychological trauma” amongst the people were reported.

Yes, in Singapore we are sheltered from these. But we are still flood prone, and still subject to the effects of sea level rising. There is a whole lot of environmental processes to go into, besides the sentimentalism and aesthetics put forward by Prof Ng. It takes more than an economist to understand this. Economists, it seems, “must be educated” to use Prof Quah’s own words.

Where is the Balance?

2008-01-05T04:33:00.000-08:00

Recently, there has been a lot of commotion in the nature circles over the turning of Mandai into a "spa retreat", not least by a long, rather scathing post by Joseph Lai. As I did my field work in Nee Soon (and hearing the Seletar Range firing away) I thought about the multiple land use in Singapore.

Singapore is a small country, and so the government has had to find multiple uses of a specific piece of land in the urban (High-rise homes or offices built over Multi-storey carparks over shopping centres over underground MRT stations)and the less urban (I refuse to use "country-side" or "rural" to describe any place in Singapore Island) areas (SAF training ground and nature reserves and tourist spots). But the contention many have is that what works in an urban setting may not work in a different, more natural setting, especially with regards to wildlife where you cannot plan things. Sure you can plan to build a resort with a good forest setting and a way to control the bugs, but will the bug-control result in the death of the forest and giving way to stale, sterile, ornamental plantation? (Yes I said it. I have a disdain for all the "touristy" flower places and nicely manicured, "planned" parks which are not natural at all) You cannot transplant animals into tiny cramped environment and expect them to behave as they would in their natural, wide-ranging habitats.

I started my conservation journey inspired by Dr. Jane Goodall's work at the forests of Gombe, how she managed to find a balance for the people there, between livelihood and protecting the forest. Singapore may be harder, it's too small, and our forests, frankly are not sustainable on their own, and need constant care. What's bugging me now, are the questions: Does this point of balance even exist in Singapore? Or have we passed it in 1850?

Irresponsible Designers

2007-11-17T04:33:00.000-08:00

Early there was a Paris fashion week sometime ago (no I do not follow fashion, nor do I care for such pompous, resource-wasting activities), and obviously the big labels were there to showcase their new stuff. It turned out that there is an alarming trend in fashion design - the use of exotic skins.

Here're a few things that I found out:
1) Christian Dior had a collection that was made up of python, ostrich and fox skins.
2) Calvin Klein's collection featured jackets that had alligator skins.
3) Celine came up with a white python skirt.
4) Jimmy Choo made snakeskin sandals .
5) Ferragamo used alligator for their footwear.
6) Alexander McQueen used snakeskin in his skirtsuits.
7) Christian Dior had a ponyskin clutchbag.
Just a few to name, I stopped looking because it get depressing.

Roberto Cavalli had this to say about the use of animal skins in design:
"Exotic skins are hot right now, there's a real buzz. I love to use reptile skins because it excites me to take a material that is seen as wild and mix it with a look that shouts glamour and sophistication. Exotic skin - alligator, crocodile and snake - also gives the impression of being superluxurious and expensive, a look women are into at the moment. For men it's cars. For women it's bags, shoes and belts now. A rich woman wants her bag to do the talking. It's the most sophisticated way to say you have money. Exotic skin is the ultimate. Everyone knows it is expensive.”

That was disgraceful. Want a visual? Here's Kylie Minogue and Eva Longoria with their(then) new python bags (probably wasting away in their collections now). And check out the price tags.

It's scant consolation that they cost more than cattle leather.

This is getting too far. How would Mr. Cavalli like to be worn by a bear? A friend suggested dumping him into a Roman amphitheatre with four lions and a feather duster to defend himself with. That should shake him up a bit.

But seriously, people have become short-sighted and/or self-centred. They do not question, and more often than not, they do not care how that bag was made, from what, who does it and how it is done. I do not think that Ms Longoria (Mrs. Parker now) thought about any of those when she got that crazy bag. Pythons are remarkable animals in that they survive with remarkably low metabolic rates, and as such, are tolerant of low oxygen levels. They have a rather primitive brain, and such animals sometimes can survive as 2 seperate entities when decapitated. In fact, this can happen even in birds as well. Go look up "Mike the headless chicken". Therefore, it's virtually impossible to kill them by physical means without otherwise destroying the skin. Naturally it follows that people are actually skinning the pythons alive. Of course, they do die eventually, but that's probably because they dehydrate without their skins.

Pythons aren't the only sufferers. Alligators and crocodiles are getting it too. They are "killed" by driving a chisel into their spinal cord. Of course, not being physiologists, they do not know that these animals aren't dead when they are being skinned, they are still very much alive, and they eventually bleed to death during the skinning itself (the egoistic skinners will now tell you they complete the skinning before the animals die).

It has been estimated that between 2000 and 2005, some 3.4 million lizard, 2.9million crocodile and 3.4 million snakeskins were killed and imported to European Union for their skins. These reptiles are in Appendix II under CITES now. Maybe it's time to push for something higher. They cannot afford to wait till they become really critically endangered before we do anything, because for all our ability to design, discover and engineer, humans can sometimes be the most stupid animals on the planet. People must start asking themselves if it is worth:
1)risking a poor native's life to try and catch and kill an animal perfectly capable of killing him,
2)sacrificing the life of the animal just for that weird bag which they can survive very well without.

I cringe everytime women see an animal skin product and go "I must have that!", because they don't have to have it. They won't die without it, and if they realise that, that python would still be somewhere in the rainforest helping farmers to control rat populations.

Are Biofuels the solution?

2007-11-03T05:29:00.000-07:00

Everyone knows the link between global warming and combustion of fossil fuels, and how many organisations (except for oil companies) and governments (either out of good intentions or purely because of economics) have begun pushing for the increased use of biofuels, i.e fuels made out of biomass, e.g. manure, or ethanol from sugarcane fermentation, etc. But are biofuels good alternatives?

Biofuels are encouraged mainly for two reasons. First, under combustion, biofuels generally give off up to 60% less carbon emissions than fossil fuels. Second, that there will be some energy security (i.e life can generally go on if oil supplies and prices fluctuate).

However many things have not yet been taken into consideration. What about the production costs (in carbon terms) of producing the biofuels? Will the use of biofuels be an excuse to put more vehicles on the road (thereby negating the supposed carbon savings)? Will the production of biofuels adversely other things on Earth? Are people really looking at the big picture without cash-registers ringing in their heads?

Yes, we all know by now that use of biofuels can potentially cut carbon emissions by 60%. But how are the biofuels produced? We industrialise everything. So now we have to consider the carbon costs of the industry. Fuels need to burnt to manufacture fertiliser, to power machinery in the farms and biofuel plants, and fuel needs to be burnt to transport crops (or whatever biomass) to and from the biofuel plants. An whole new carbon emitting industry is setup. Will the eventual emission-savings of cars running on biofuels be enough to offset the costs? We don't know for sure yet, but I suspect, no.

There's worse to come. It's something that really riles me sometimes. And our neighbours in Malaysia are part of this whole farce. Whoever that did the calculations in carbon savings did so with the assumption that carbon absorption by forests would stay constant. But neighbouring countries around us are seizing this economic opportunity by clearing large patches of forest and starting palm oil plantations. The Malaysian Palm Oil Council CEO has also put the following blatant lie in the Council's website "www.mpoc.org.my":

"There are a number of advantages in using palm oil for the production of biofuel. Unlike fossil fuels, the combustion of palm oil biofuel does not increase the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as the oil is merely returning carbon dioxide obtained earlier from the atmosphere through photosynthesis. As such, biofuel is regarded as carbon neutral.

Since carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas responsible for global warming, the world benefits by the burning of biofuel instead of fossil fuel. Additionally, the palm trees that produce oil have simultaneously absorbed a lot more carbon dioxide during photosynthesis to form biomass for the other parts of the plant. The tree continues to absorb carbon dioxide throughout its life span of 25-30 years. A consumer of palm biofuel in Europe can therefore take comfort in knowing that palm biofuel is more than carbon neutral.

An added benefit of photosynthesis is the release of oxygen to the atmosphere. The quantity of oxygen released by oil palm, a perennial crop, far exceeds that produced by annual crops such as soybean or rapeseed. The cultivation of palm trees is therefore a huge contributing factor in the reduction of global warming. "

There is no way that clearing forests will result in reduction of global warming. Palm trees, although they do absorb some carbon during photosynthesis, will not absorb more than a patch of forest of the same area, simply because the density of vegetation is so different! Trees in plantations are planted some distance apart from each other, unlike in forests. They also have not accounted for the carbon costs in the production process and the loss of absorption when the original forests were cleared and there was no vegetation.

Now, the IMF has raised another issue. The use of other crops, like soy and maize, has put a lot of pressure on food supplies throughout the world. Food prices are rising, and the poor are starving more and more. Is it worth starving anyone just so that someone can turn their food into fuel for a car that they don't really need? Is it worth depriving a poor man of an ear of corn just so that someone can drive to his posh, air-conditioned office two blocks away? The magnitude of the problem (845 million people will go to sleep hungry tonight) makes it a hard problem to solve. People cannot put a face to it. Josef Stalin said "One dead is a tragedy, one million dead is a statistic". How apt is his description!

It seems to me that biofuels is not the answer. And its benefits could possibly be overhyped by governments trying to make a quick buck. People must change their lifestyles. E.O. Wilson said that we will probably need two more planets in order to sustain the lifestyles of typical Americans (which the majority of the world is trying to "acheive"). Earth, big as it is, is running out of space, and is being suffocated by us. Look at the picture below. It shows how much space (and you can imagine the carbon emission) it takes to transport a bunch of people by car.

And the group, if transported by bus (See the difference!).

The pictures are courtesy of the Geo-4 report, which got them from the Press-Office of the City of Münster, Germany.

So in the end, I ask the same question to all reading this. Are biofuels the solution?

Choking on Growth

2007-11-01T09:14:00.000-07:00

The below is an article from The New York Times, October 14th, 2007

In China, a Lake’s Champion Imperils Himself
By JOSEPH KAHN
Published: October 14, 2007

ZHOUTIE, China — Lake Tai, the center of China’s ancient “land of fish and rice,” succumbed this year to floods of industrial and agricultural waste.

Toxic cyanobacteria, commonly referred to as pond scum, turned the big lake fluorescent green. The stench of decay choked anyone who came within a mile of its shores. At least two million people who live amid the canals, rice paddies and chemical plants around the lake had to stop drinking or cooking with their main source of water.

The outbreak confirmed the claims of a crusading peasant, Wu Lihong, who protested for more than a decade that the region’s thriving chemical industry, and its powerful friends in the local government, were destroying one of China’s ecological treasures.

Mr. Wu, however, bore silent witness. Shortly before the algae crisis erupted in May, the authorities here in his hometown arrested him. In mid-August, with a fetid smell still wafting off the lake, a local court sentenced him to three years on an alchemy of charges that smacked of official retribution.

Pollution has reached epidemic proportions in China, in part because the ruling Communist Party still treats environmental advocates as bigger threats than the degradation of air, water and soil that prompts them to speak out.

Senior officials have tried to address environmental woes mostly through pulling the traditional levers of China’s authoritarian system: issuing command quotas on energy efficiency and emissions reduction; punishing corrupt officials who shield polluters; planting billions of trees across the country to hold back deserts and absorb carbon dioxide.

But they do not dare to unleash individuals who want to make China cleaner. Grass-roots environmentalists arguably do more to expose abuses than any edict emanating from Beijing. But they face a political climate that varies from lukewarm tolerance to icy suppression.

Fixing the environment is, in other words, a political problem. Central party officials say they need people to report polluters and hold local governments to account. They granted legal status to private citizens’ groups in 1994 and have allowed environmentalism to emerge as an incipient social force.

But local officials in China get ahead mainly by generating high rates of economic growth and ensuring social order. They have wide latitude to achieve those goals, including nearly complete control over the police and the courts in their domains. They have little enthusiasm for environmentalists who appeal over their heads to higher-ups in the capital.

Mr. Wu, a jaunty, 40-year-old former factory salesman, pioneered a style of intrepid, media-savvy environmental work that made Lake Tai, and the hundreds of chemical factories on its shores, the focus of intense regulatory scrutiny.

In 2005 he was declared an “Environmental Warrior” by the National People’s Congress. His address book contained cellphone numbers for officials in Beijing and the provincial capital of Nanjing who outranked the party bosses where he lived.

But Mr. Wu was far from untouchable. He lost his job. His wife lost hers. The police summoned, detained and interrogated him. The local government and factory owners also tried for years to bring him into the fold with contracts, gifts and jobs. When party officials offered him a chance to profit handsomely from a pollution cleanup contract, a friend warned him not to accept. Mr. Wu, who needed the money, said yes.

Lake of Plenty

The country’s third largest freshwater body, Lake Tai, or Taihu in Chinese, has long provided the people of the lower Yangtze River Delta with both their wealth and their conception of natural beauty.

It nurtured a bounty of the “three whites,” white shrimp, whitebait and whitefish, and a freshwater crustacean delicacy called the hairy crab. Natural and man-made streams irrigated rice paddies, and a network of canals ferried that produce far and wide.

Along the lake’s northern reaches, near the city of Wuxi, placid waters and misty hills captured the imagination of Chinese for hundreds of years. The wealthy built gardens that featured the lake’s wrinkled, water-scarred limestone rocks set in groves of bamboo and chrysanthemum.

Since the 1950s, however, Lake Tai has been under assault. The authorities constructed dams and weirs to improve irrigation and control floods, disrupting the cleansing circulation of fresh water. Phosphates and other pollution-borne nutrients made the lake eutrophic, sucking out oxygen that fish need to survive.

Even in its degraded state, Lake Tai made an ideal habitat for China’s chemical industry, which expanded prolifically in the 1980s. Chemical factories consume and discharge large quantities of water, which the lake provided and absorbed. Its canals made it easy to ship goods to the big industrial port city of Shanghai, downstream.

With strong local government support, the northern arc of Lake Tai became home to 2,800 chemical plants, most of them small cinder-block factories that took over rice paddies beside canals.

Mr. Wu’s hometown alone had 300 such plants. His narrow village road was reinforced with concrete to withstand the weight of cargo trucks. Factories here made food additives, solvents and adhesives.

The industry transformed the economy. By the mid-1990s, taxes on chemical industry profits accounted for four-fifths of local government revenue, according to a report from the city of Yixing, which oversees Zhoutie.

Mr. Wu benefited as well. In his early 20s, he got a salaried job as salesman for a factory that made soundproofing material. It allowed him to travel around the country, and paid nice commissions on his sales. His wife, Xu Jiehua, made dyes.

Mr. Wu took long walks after dinner. The acrid tinge in the cool night air was the smell of prosperity to some locals. But it nauseated him, Mr. Wu recalled in later interviews.

In streams where he and Ms. Xu played as children, teeming whitefish used to tickle their legs. By the early 1990s, there were no fish in the streams, which ran black and red. “Rivers of blood,” Ms. Xu quoted him as saying.

Mr. Wu is small and pudgy. Ms. Xu calls him “little fatty.” He also has a short temper, and pollution sparked it.

“In the beginning I didn’t understand it myself,” he recalled years later in an interview with Farmers’ Daily. “It was my personality that decided all of this. I felt the burden getting bigger.”

He began by snapping photos of factories dumping untreated effluent into canals. He mailed them, anonymously at first, to environmental protection agencies.

When that produced few results, he signed the letters and included his phone number, volunteering to help inspectors see the problem for themselves.

Local regulators ignored him. But fish kills, declining rice yields and slumping tourism to the once pristine area made Lake Tai’s ecology a broader concern. Higher-ranking officials in Nanjing, capital of Jiangsu Province, got in touch.

One evening, Mr. Wu brought provincial inspectors to see concealed pipes running from a factory near his home to a stream that flowed into the lake. The factory, Feida Chemical, got slapped with a fine, and Mr. Wu got his start.

Friends and Enemies

Mr. Wu’s farmhouse filled up with the evidence he amassed, a bit haphazardly, of a looming environmental disaster. He used his pantry to store plastic bottles containing muddy water samples from streams and canals. Near his queen-size bed he kept stacks of newspaper clippings and photographs, letters and petitions.

One letter from local farmers described how a nearby factory making 8-hydroxyquinoline, used as a deodorant and antiseptic, emitted noxious fumes that “make our days and nights impassable.” Another writer referred to a local factory as “a new Unit 731,” after the Japanese team that conducted chemical warfare experiments in World War II. Members of another group said they did not dare tend their rice paddies without wearing gloves and galoshes because irrigation water caused their skin to peel off.

Mr. Wu answered many such calls for help. Between 1998 and 2006, the environmental protection agency of Jiangsu Province recorded receiving 200 reports of pollution incidents and regulatory violations from Mr. Wu.

Many of those he helped became allies. But Mr. Wu was making as many enemies as friends.

“Our society lacks the right atmosphere for environmental protection,” he told one local newspaper. “Even in areas where pollution is most severe, I still have a hard time winning people’s support.”

Some residents feared for their jobs, with good reason. The soundproofing factory fired Mr. Wu in 1999. His notice of dismissal, which he saved among his other papers, cited his failure to attend a meeting.

His family lived off his wife’s salary at the dye factory for a time. Then one day Ms. Xu mentioned to Mr. Wu how the stream near her factory changed colors depending on which dye they made that day. Mr. Wu brought a television crew to film the rainbow-colored stream. Ms. Xu soon lost her job as well.

“He did not always have our family’s happiness at heart,” Ms. Xu recalled. “He probably should have investigated someone else’s factory.”

Such pressure, though, made him confront local authorities more directly.

In 2001, Wen Jiabao, then a vice premier, now China’s prime minister, came to investigate reports of Lake Tai’s deterioration. Like most Communist Party inspection tours, word of this one reached local officials in advance. When Mr. Wen asked to see a typical dye plant, one was made ready, according to several people who witnessed the preparations.

The factory got a fresh coat of paint. The canal that ran beside it was drained, dredged and refilled with fresh water. Shortly before Mr. Wen’s motorcade arrived, workers dumped thousands of carp into the canal. Farmers were positioned along the banks holding fishing rods.

Mr. Wen spent 20 minutes there. A picture of him shaking hands with the factory boss hangs in its lobby.

Mr. Wu fired off an angry letter to Beijing recounting the ruse and warning the vice premier that he had been “deceived.” Mr. Wu circulated copies among his friends. Local officials saw it, too. Several villagers said they were warned then that they should keep a distance from Mr. Wu.

Words From Above

One summer afternoon in 2002, Mr. Wu went out on an errand and saw a banner stretched across the main road downtown. It read: “Warmly welcome the police to arrest Wu Lihong for committing blackmail in the name of environmentalism.”

Mr. Wu told friends he initially suspected that the banner was hung by local factory bosses to intimidate him. But when he went to the police to complain, he found a stack of placards with the same exhortation in the police station. The police had erected the banner themselves, and they detained him on the spot.

His family received a detention notice accusing Mr. Wu of inciting farmers to stage a public protest about pollution a few weeks earlier. The notice did not mention blackmail, as the banner had, and the police never pressed charges. He was released within two weeks.

That episode appeared to be part of an inconsistent, somewhat bumbling effort to keep Mr. Wu boxed up and harmless.

There were carrots as well as sticks. Zhang Aiguo, the chief environmental regulator in the city of Yixing, struck up a dialogue with Mr. Wu, several friends said.

Hang Yaobin, a truck driver and sundry shop owner in Zhoutie who has also pressed for better environmental controls, said Mr. Zhang told Mr. Wu that they could improve the environment together. But Mr. Wu should expose problems in other jurisdictions and should stop damaging Yixing’s reputation.

“Zhang Aiguo told him: ‘Don’t make me stink, or I’ll lose my job. Then we’ll accomplish nothing,’” Mr. Hang said.

In a telephone interview, Mr. Zhang declined to discuss his dealings with Mr. Wu in detail. But he acknowledged that the two talked regularly before he was assigned to another position in the Yixing government.

In 2003, Mr. Zhang offered Mr. Wu a business opportunity. A steel plant in Zhoutie had been ordered by environmental authorities to buy new dust-control equipment. Mr. Wu could find a vendor for the equipment and earn a handsome commission, several people told about the arrangement said.

Mr. Zhang confirmed that he told Mr. Wu of the opportunity.

Mr. Wu debated whether to accept. Mr. Hang said he advised his friend against it. “If you’re engaged in a confrontation with officials you can’t gamble, or visit prostitutes, or have any other vice,” Mr. Han said. “They are always looking for ways to get you.”

But this contract involved an environmental cleanup. And with both Mr. Wu and his wife out of work, they needed money. Mr. Wu agreed to contact a vendor recommended by Mr. Zhang.

It was not a rewarding endeavor. He brokered a contract. But the dust-control company gave him only a token advance on his promised commission. The steel plant boss, who had befriended Mr. Wu, eventually withheld part of what he owed the dust-control company to compensate Mr. Wu, according to Ms. Xu, his wife.

That was one of several muddled interactions with local officials and businessmen that did not satisfy either side. Mr. Wu remained cash-strapped. He did not stop contacting Nanjing and Beijing about pollution problems.

In 2005, he heard that the local government would be the host of a big delegation of Chinese reporters as part of the China Environmental Century Tour. He got in touch with China Central Television, the leading national broadcaster, and promised to reveal the story behind the story.

He arranged covertly for the reporters to inspect a section of the Caoqiao River that he learned the government planned to show them on the coming tour. He revealed hidden pipes that discharged black effluent from local factories into the river, which flows into Lake Tai.

The China Central Television crew later joined the Potemkin official tour. They aired a special report on “the river that goes from black to clear overnight.”

Mr. Wu was the star of that report, an environmental celebrity. Later the same year, the National People’s Congress, China’s party-run Parliament, declared him an “Environmental Warrior.”

Model City

With President Hu Jintao and Mr. Wen demanding tougher action on pollution, local officials in 2006 came under new pressure to clean up Lake Tai. Despite repeated pledges and campaigns to protect the once scenic lake, it was still rated Grade V by the State Environmental Protection Administration, the lowest level on its scale.

Yixing ordered a new crackdown on small chemical factories. It claimed to have reduced the total number by half from the peak of 2,800 in the late 1990s. The city said the industry, which once accounted for as much as 85 percent of the area’s industrial output, constituted just 40 percent in 2006.

But local officials put at least as much emphasis on fighting the perception that they had a pollution problem. They lobbied heavily for the State Environmental Protection Administration to declare it a “Model City for Environmental Protection.”

Around the same time, Wu Xijun, the Communist Party boss of Zhoutie, called Mr. Wu to his office. The two Mr. Wus, who are not related, had a “face-to-face talk” about the damage Wu Lihong’s environmental protests were doing to the area’s reputation. The party secretary then made him an offer, according to friends of Mr. Wu and an official court document that confirmed the meeting.

In March 2006, the township party committee paid Mr. Wu to promote tourism on the condition that he stop “nonfactual reporting” of pollution problems. The payments totaled about $5,000, the court document confirmed.

Mr. Wu may have toned down his protests for a time, friends said. But early this year, he learned that Yixing had won the environmental administration’s designation as a “Model City for Environmental Protection.” Enraged, he began his most assertive effort to date to embarrass local officials.

He spent weeks traveling throughout the area on his motorcycle, collecting water samples and photographing rivers and canals. He gathered data he hoped could prove that factories released most of their polluted water at night in quantities that the currents could wash away by dawn.

In April, he prepared to bring the water samples and photographic evidence to Beijing. He told friends he intended to file a lawsuit there against SEPA, the environmental administration, for its decision to honor Yixing. He never made the trip.

On the night of April 13, several dozen police and state security officers raided his farmhouse. Climbing ladders, they pried open the windows to his second-floor bedroom, arresting him and seizing documents and a computer.

Prosecutors quickly indicted Mr. Wu on two charges of blackmail. The first charge claimed that after he “gained knowledge” of a contract between the steel company and the dust-control company in 2003, he threatened to use his connections to undermine it unless the dust-control company paid him to keep quiet.

The second charge claimed that Mr. Wu extorted money from the Communist Party Committee of Zhoutie by threatening to report pollution problems.

Prosecutors revised the indictment twice in the following weeks. They dropped the charge of blackmailing the Communist Party, offering no explanation. Then they added a new charge, this one for “fraud.” It claimed that Mr. Wu had illegally aided the steel company boss in preparing false documentation to account for the money the steel company paid Mr. Wu in 2003.

The three indictments each claimed that Mr. Wu confessed to the various charges. The last week of May, with Mr. Wu in custody, Lake Tai cried for help. Nitrogen and phosphorous, the untreated residue of chemical processing, fertilizer, and sewage, built up to record levels, while rainfall fell short.

Lake Tai’s Revenge

Lake Tai had algal blooms before. This time, according to an analysis by the State Environmental Protection Administration, cyanobacteria “exploded” at rates that had not been seen in the past. Much of the lake was covered with a deep, foul-smelling canopy that left most of the 2.3 million people in Wuxi, the biggest city on the northern part of the lake, without drinking water for many days.

Local officials initially called the outbreak a “natural disaster.” But state media rushed to the scene, and some showed pictures of chemical factories dumping waste into the lake even as residents formed long lines at supermarkets to buy bottled water.

Neighboring cities shut sluice gates and canal locks to prevent contamination, creating a monumental maritime traffic jam and further reducing circulation around Lake Tai. The problem did not ease until central authorities ordered Yangtze River water diverted into the lake. Even then, the bloom lingered into late summer.

Mr. Wen convened a meeting of the State Council to discuss the matter. “The pollution of Lake Tai has sounded the alarm for us,” state media quoted him as saying. “The problem has never been tackled at its root.”

Five party and government officials in Yixing and Zhoutie, including three involved in environmental work, were dismissed or demoted. Li Yuanchao, the party boss of Jiangsu Province, vowed to clean up Lake Tai even if it meant taking a 15 percent cut to the province’s economic output. Authorities pledged to shut down hundreds of the most egregious polluters in their most sweeping crackdown to date.

Ms. Xu, Mr. Wu’s wife, said she hoped the authorities would conclude that it would be improper, or at least inconvenient, to prosecute Mr. Wu under such conditions. His trial, initially scheduled for June, was delayed, prompting speculation that someone at a higher level had intervened.

But although Mr. Wu’s arrest generated attention in both the domestic and international media, there is no indication that central government officials objected to his prosecution. On a Friday afternoon in August, the road in front of Yixing’s courthouse filled with Volkswagen Santanas, the standard-issue sedans of China’s police and security services. In a park nearby, officials hung a banner advertising the city’s new status as a “Model City for Environmental Protection.”

The evidence against Mr. Wu consisted mainly of written testimony and his own confession. The judges rejected a request by Mr. Wu’s lawyer to summon prosecution witnesses for cross-examination.

Mr. Wu told the judges in open court that the police had deprived him of food and forced him to stay awake for five days and five nights in succession, relenting only when he signed a written confession. He said that the confession was coerced and that he was innocent. The judges ruled that since Mr. Wu could not prove that he had been tortured, his confession remained valid.

Mr. Wu lost his temper. “Since I was a child I have never broken the law,” he shouted, according to relatives who attended. “If I could right now, I would like to split you in two.” He was sentenced to three years.

Shortly after the trial, Mr. Hang, the sundry shop owner and colleague of Mr. Wu, handed a reporter photos, clippings and documents collected over a decade of environmental work. He said he had no use for them now. Environmental work had become too risky.

He said he had recently seen some little fish darting around in the milky green water of a canal nearby. He took it as a good sign. “Once the white shrimp come back, that would be good,” he said. The white shrimp had not come back just yet.

Saving Sharks?

2007-10-20T06:48:00.000-07:00

Below is a newsarticle from Yahoo News.

Fake fins eye saving sharks, Chinese wallets

A Japanese company is launching fake shark fins in China, hoping to tap a market as prices for real ones rise amid concerns the species is being hunted to extinction.

Shark fin is considered one of the highest-end delicacies in Chinese cuisine and also fetches high prices in select Japanese restaurants.

Nikko Yuba Seizo Co. a Japanese food-processing company, said it had developed artificial shark fins made out of pork gelatin. Its top executives returned Friday from a two-day trip to China to introduce the products.

"Shark fin prices have been rising constantly in recent years due to a fall in the volume traded, so we decided to develop an artificial fin," said Tadashi Kozuka, a top official of the company which also trades real shark fins imported from Indonesia, Brazil and elsewhere.

"We visited Shanghai and Dalian -- big cities where wealthy Chinese people live -- to seek trading partners. I guess fins sell well among rich people," he said.

But he said the artificial version would also appeal to Chinese who would not be able to afford the real fins, which are served as a luxury at weddings and other important occasions.

Kozuka said the company had long queues of customers when it first presented its product in China at a trade fair in June in the southern city of Guangzhou.

The price of the gelatin-made fin costs only one-tenth of the real one, or about 1,500 yen (15 dollars) per kilogram when sold wholesale, he said.

Controversy over China's appetite for shark's fin rose last year when the country's most famous sports personality, basketball star Yao Ming, called for a boycott of the dish to save the fish from extinction. Some species of shark are now endangered.

Environmentalists have campaigned to stop "finning," when fishermen catch sharks and cut off their fins before throwing the carcasses back into the sea. The practice is blamed for preventing an accurate picture of shark numbers.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Would introducing substitutes really save the sharks? I feel the company that is doing this, while it might have good intentions, may have completely missed the point.

Shark's fins is not just a simple delicacy. It's cultural roots run deep. Has anyone wondered why Shark's fins soup always comes as a second dish at banquets after the cold dish? That's because in Ben Cao Gang Mu (Historical Chinese Medicine Encyclopedia written by Li Shizhen) it's said to stimulate appetite. The Chinese have used shark fins in shark-fin soup, considered a delicacy, since the Han Dynasty over 2200 years ago. There are records of both the Song Dynasty (960–1279) and the Qing Dynasty (1644–1911) using shark-fin soup as a banquet staple. In the Ming Dynasty, it became an imperial privilege to consume sharks fin's soup.

Chinese gastronomical culture is largely influenced by what the emperors ate, which the commoners could not afford, and its passed on to this day. Shark's fins soup is one example, as are bird's nest soup, and abalone dishes. To the Chinese, to be able to have these for a meal is considered a status elevation, and something to be proud of, to show off. No matter if these things have absolutely no taste, or nutritional value. By the way, Shark's fin's were never used because of they are particularly tasty. In fact, they are completely tasteless, or might taste like ammonia if not treated properly. Shark's fins were added to soup (besides their appetising and aphrodesiac properties) because they gave the soup a great consistency supposedly unmatched by other additives. Nothing but the best for the emperor right? That's probably how the dish became a status symbol.

Chinese Culture is such that when presented with such luxury, even if one did not appreciate it, they must learn, or at least pretend to. It's not considered a good omen to have a kid say he hates shark's fins soup because superstitious parents may take it to mean that the child is destined to live a "coolie's life" and so will never appreciate luxury. Hence this dish, as a result of its imperial status, must be served at Chinese events, otherwise the host will be frowned upon as a stingy person, and he will lose "face". Many Chinese would rather die than be in that situation.

Therefore to them, substitute Shark's fins is not an option. True, poorer people might take up that option as a substitute (better than nothing), but it is the current market now that's decimating Shark populations. It's like proposing to your girlfriend with a 50cent lollipop ring instead of a 5 thousand dollar princess cut diamond ring. Nonetheless, it is a good thing to have, just that maybe, it arrived a bit too early. People must be educated to develop an aversion to eating shark's fins. Which is a formidable task, considering in China, your pet dog might end up in a claypot.

Guess Who's Coming?

2007-10-11T06:59:00.000-07:00

I really excited and am trying to keep myself from gushing... Jane Goodall will be coming to our humble little island!!! Here are the details:

Act for Earth!

Dress up as your favourite endangered plant or animal and advocate for our wild habitats!
Get your kids dressed up too!

Parade from Jacob Ballas Children's Garden to Palm Valley for picnic and performances!
See Dr Jane Goodall in person with her chimpanzee mascot, Mr H.

For more information and to register, http://wildlifeparade.wordpress.com/

To find out more about Dr. Jane Goodall and her work, check out http://www.janegoodall.org/

Date and Time : Friday, 2 November 2007 (Parade - 4pm)
Venue : Singapore Botanic Gardens (Parade - Jacob Ballas Children's Garden, Singapore Botanic Gardens)
Price : Free Admission
Agenda : To create a better awareness about our fragile earth and her endangered wildlife

On a different note, after my rant yesterday, it turns out that there are plans to build eco-passages joining BTNR and CCNR! Hooray!

Society Leaders and Conservation

2007-10-10T06:56:00.000-07:00

Up until now, we've got a bunch of people passionately working to arrest the climate change and biodiversity crises that the world is facing. And they're all the same faces, mostly from the scientific world. However, slowly but surely, more and more people are awakening to the idea that something may have gone horribly haywire. Incredibily, "more and more" does not seem to include the so-called "upper echelons" of our society.

Here what everyone should do. Find one nice day to hang around outside parliament house on a day where parliament is sitting. Take down the makes and models of every minister's vehicle that enters the parliament house. Then go to http://www.epa.gov/emissweb/ to check out the efficiency, air pollution scores and emission levels of their vehicles. Our leaders are probably among the most polluting individuals in the country! Never mind the flashy businessmen with their tank-like Mercedes, we're talking about a country's leaders. They are supposed to set the examples. You might also notice that Singapore isn't actually very vocal when it comes to the environment. We keep quiet about shark's fins, their petrol guzzling vehicles, the fact that Singapore is a hub of illegal wildlife trafficking, the usurping of Khatib Bongsu and their incredibly stupid decision to cut an expressway through Bukit Timah, the huge ecological catastrophes that our society contributes too. At the same time, tiny ant steps that they take when its convenient are trumpetted like we just saved the world from impending disaster.

Let's move away from the politicians. Besides, if they did restrict shark's fins and tighten fuel efficiency rules whole industries would fold and they would lose their votes and according to them, when we stop voting for them, the country would go under. (Incidentally, that might happen if the ice caps continue to melt) So let's take a look at the religious people. After all, Ataturk once said,"Religion is an important institution. A nation without religion cannot survive."

No wait, I don't see anything. Big fat nothing. The major religions have not done anything significant to address any of these worldly problems. And I wonder why not. We have church congregations spending millions in building new churches with (Horrors!) air-conditioning. How about passing the hat / bag around for money for say, replanting our forests or funding environmental campaigns instead of nodding knowingly at the perceived accuracies of some obsure armageddon prophecy? Do religious leaders even know the severity of climate change?

The conservation movement, in all honesty is not moving fast enough. Dengue is moving to Europe. The Arctic ice-cap has a path melted through it. But people are still more interesting in asking gods and priests for 4D numbers. And they get there in their Lexus / Mercedes / BMW SUVs.

Blog for the Environment

2007-10-09T08:29:00.000-07:00

On October 15th, bloggers around the web will unite to put a single important issue on everyone’s mind - the environment. Every blogger will post about the environment in their own way and relating to their own topic. Our aim is to get everyone talking towards a better future.

Blog Action Day is about MASS participation. That means we need you! Here are 3 ways to participate:

1)Post on your blog relating to the environment on Blog Action Day
2)Donate your day’s earnings to an environmental charity
3)Promote Blog Action Day around the web

Go to http://blogactionday.org/commit to become part of the voice for the environment~

ACRES Events Update

2007-10-02T08:12:00.000-07:00

Show the world that “Animals Matter To Me”! 5th to 7th October
Venue: The Atrium @ Orchard (Beside Plaza Singapura), 60B Orchard Road map
Day/Time: Friday, Saturday and Sunday, 10am to 10pm daily
To mark World Animal Day, Acres will be celebrating Singaporeans' support for animal protection efforts by holding a 3-day animal-themed festival. There will be a photographic exhibition, music, dance, children's activities and a large array of educational exhibits on animal protection issues, along with the opportunity for everyone to find out how they can help make the world a better place for the animals we share it with.

More importantly, we aim to collect 4, 000 signatures for the global “Animals Matter to Me” campaign in support of a Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare to be endorsed by governments of the world. This is a call to everyone, worldwide, to recognise all animals as sentient beings, that they can feel pain and can suffer and that we have a responsibility to put an end to cruelty around the world.

Please drop by and show your support, and show the world that animals matter to you!

Volunteers are needed to help with this event. If you are interested please contact charlene@acres.org.sg

By the way, October 4th every year is World Animal Day, if you didn't already know.

When Businessmen Run Conservation Programs

2007-09-29T08:30:00.000-07:00

I found this news article while trawling the net to pass time, from China Daily, and it concerns the Siberian Tigers from Harbin Park, one of the most successful captive breeding centres for Siberian Tigers. Unfortunately, some comments made me wonder why the Chinese even started the breeding programme in the first place. I copied and pasted the article below:

Siberian tigers move south to make some money
By Wu Yong (China Daily)
Updated: 2007-09-28 07:51

Fifteen Siberian tigers are traveling a long way from Harbin in Northeast China to Xiamen in the south - to help their families and relatives live a better life back home.

The Harbin-based Siberian Tiger Park signed a five-year contract with Xiamen Huzhilin Company earlier this year for an undisclosed amount; and the tigers will be on view in the coastal city from October 1, the first day of the week-long National Day holidays.

To take care of the tigers, two zookeepers from Harbin will be with them throughout the five years, said Bian Shifeng, a park employee.

It is not the first time the Harbin park has leased out tigers to ease its financial strain - more than 100 tigers can be found in Dalian, Shenyang and Taiyuan zoos, and generate about 1 million yuan ($133,000) each year, a source close to the park said.

The park, founded in 1996, is one of the major Siberian tiger breeding bases in the country. In the past decade, their number has jumped from eight to more than 800.

While preservation of the precious species is ensured, the increasing number of big cats has led to another conundrum: How to feed them.

Wang Ligang, the park's general manger, said the financial deficit is rising despite local government support.

A tiger eats 5 kg of meat every day and its annual expense covering food and medical care is about 30,000 yuan ($3,993).

Which means the park has to fork out more than 20 million yuan ($2.67 million) each year, according to Liu Dan, chief engineer of the park.

Wang said the park has three sources of income: ticket sales, leasing out the tigers and government funding. "But it is far from enough."

The price of pork and other meat rose more than 80 percent in the first eight months of this year, driven mostly by increases in animal feed prices, according to the National Bureau of Statistics.

Sources familiar with the conditions in the park said tigers are now fed chicken instead of beef to cut costs.

Cao Liang, director of the China Wildlife Conservation Association, said tiger leasing is justified as long as approval is secured from the local governments. "The best protection for many tigers (in Harbin) is to provide enough food for them," Cao said.

"The only solution is to lift the ban on tiger trade. The trade of bones from tigers that are bred in captivity and die of natural causes will not affect the conservation of wild tigers. This can help raise funds for living tigers and also give relief to patients," Wang said.

In Chinese medicine, tiger parts are used as cures for illnesses ranging from colds to rheumatism.

In China, about 50 tigers live in the wilderness and around 5,000 in captivity. Some 1,000 are born each year in farms and about the same number have died of natural causes in recent years.

Why aren't they considering reintroduction or controlling the breeding? If you can't support so many then don't breed so many! What the park manager said sounds like he just pushed ahead with the breeding program at maximum speed to get recognition for a "successful breeding program", and then now he's trying to make a profit for the park (and get more credit for himself) with the "extra" or "surplus" tigers. This doesn't work. If anything, the breeding program , in such a case is a miserable flop. The Chinese government has been asking for the lifting of international bans of trade in tiger parts. For all we know, the captive breeding program could have been a pathetic (not to mention cowardly) excuse to prepare for tiger farming industries.

To everyone who's reading, let's all put in a little effort in stopping these atrocities. BigCatRescue has a petition site here: http://capwiz.com/bigcatrescue/issues/alert/?alertid=9952801&type=CU Please sign the petition, and help improve the situation there.

Prophecy Come True?

2007-09-24T08:28:00.000-07:00

A modified (and most probably modernised Cree Indian proverb goes like this: "Only when the last tree has died and the last river been poisoned and the last fish been caught will we realise we cannot eat money."

Well for those who want to know, the original story (as re-told by Lelanie Fuller Stone) goes like this...

--- There was an old lady, from the "Cree" tribe, named "Eyes of Fire", who prophesied that one day, because of the white mans' or Yo-ne-gis' greed, there would come a time, when the fish would die in the streams, the birds would fall from the air, the waters would be blackened, and the trees would no longer be, mankind as we would know it would all but cease to exist.

There would come a time when the "keepers of the legend, stories, culture rituals, and myths, and all the Ancient Tribal Customs" would be needed to restore us to health. They would be mankinds’ key to survival, they were the "Warriors of the Rainbow". There would come a day of awakening when all the peoples of all the tribes would form a New World of Justice, Peace, Freedom and recognition of the Great Spirit.

The "Warriors of the Rainbow" would spread these messages and teach all peoples of the Earth or "Elohi". They would teach them how to live the "Way of the Great Spirit". They would tell them of how the world today has turned away from the Great Spirit and that is why our Earth is "Sick".

The "Warriors of the Rainbow" would show the peoples that this "Ancient Being" (the Great Spirit), is full of love and understanding, and teach them how to make the "Earth or Elohi" beautiful again. These Warriors would give the people principles or rules to follow to make their path right with the world. These principles would be those of the Ancient Tribes. The Warriors of the Rainbow would teach the people of the ancient practices of Unity, Love and Understanding. They would teach of Harmony among people in all four comers of the Earth.

Like the Ancient Tribes, they would teach the peoples how to pray to the Great Spirit with love that flows like the beautiful mountain stream, and flows along the path to the ocean of life. Once again, they would be able to feel joy in solitude and in councils. They would be free of petty jealousies and love all mankind as their brothers, regardless of color, race or religion. They would feel happiness enter their hearts, and become as one with the entire human race. Their hearts would be pure and radiate warmth, understanding and respect for all mankind, Nature, and the Great Spirit. They would once again fill their minds, hearts, souls, and deeds with the purest of thoughts. They would seek the beauty of the Master of Life - the Great Spirit! They would find strength and beauty in prayer and the solitudes of life.

Their children would once again be able to run free and enjoy the treasures of Nature and Mother Earth. Free from the fears of toxins and destruction, wrought by the Yo-ne-gi and his practices of greed. The rivers would again run clear, the forests be abundant and beautiful, the animals and birds would be replenished. The powers of the plants and animals would again be respected and conservation of all that is beautiful would become a way of life.

The poor, sick and needy would be cared for by their brothers and sisters of the Earth. These practices would again become a part of their daily lives.

The leaders of the people would be chosen in the old way - not by their political party, or who could speak the loudest, boast the most, or by name calling or mud slinging, but by those whose actions spoke the loudest. Those who demonstrated their love, wisdom, and courage and those who showed that they could and did work for the good of all, would be chosen as the leaders or Chiefs. They would be chosen by their "quality" and not the amount of money they had obtained. Like the thoughtful and devoted "Ancient Chiefs", they would understand the people with love, and see that their young were educated with the love and wisdom of their surroundings. They would show them that miracles can be accomplished to heal this world of its ills, and restore it to health and beauty.

The tasks of these "Warriors of the Rainbow" are many and great. There will be terrifying mountains of ignorance to conquer and they shall find prejudice and hatred. They must be dedicated, unwavering in their strength, and strong of heart. They will find willing hearts and minds that will follow them on this road of returning "Mother Earth" to beauty and plenty - once more.

The day will come, it is not far away. The day that we shall see how we owe our very existence to the people of all tribes that have maintained their culture and heritage. Those that have kept the rituals, stories, legends, and myths alive. It will be with this knowledge, the knowledge that they have preserved, that we shall once again return to "harmony" with Nature, Mother Earth, and mankind. It will be with this knowledge that we shall find our "Key to our Survival". ---

I'm sure many of us would agree that much of the prophecy is coming true, that Man's (not just the white, but all the different races) greed is sucking the earth dry, and that wildlife is going extinct, the waters are becoming polluted and the forests are being cut down(And that reminds me of the rather sad state of 270 track of Panti Forest Reserve), and the politicians leading most countries are there because it makes them seen rich and powerful and pulsing with testosterone. But will we ever see the other half come true?

I think reading the prophecy gives me hope (although I've never been a religious or mystic-believing person and probably will never be one - too scientific, my other half snorts). The past year, I've met some really nice people, fighting tooth and nail for the betterment of the earth. These conservationists, they are the Warriors of the Rainbow. People like Louis from ACRES, Dr. Anna, Ria Tan (whom I've yet to meet) and some of the people at NUS and RMBR. But they are too few, and are like an advanced party. More will come and they have to come quick. This prophecy must come true.

I find that cultures are funny things. Often, the cultures are considered "Superior" in some way often have absolutely no, or close to no, respect for Nature. Lots of examples spring to mind. Chinese culture for example (I am ethnic Chinese by the way). The Chinese take pride in being able to cook and eat anything that moves. They harvest sharks, chop off their fins and dump them (finless) back in the sea. They keep bear farms to collect their bile, and have tried to legalise tiger farming. The Indo-Chinese believe in mystical powers of lorises (which unfortunately will manifest only if the lorises are killed and the corresponding body parts are eaten). The white man and royalty practically every "Superior" culture hunt animals just for fun. On the other hand, the cultures seen as "savages" or "barbaric" seem to have enormous respect for Nature. The North American Indians, the numerous African Tribes, the Nepalese, and Tibetans to name a few examples practically worship Nature. Unfortunately, many of them have now been corrupted by their conquerors. So we see African native guides who lead hunting trips, Indonesian indigenous people slashing and burning their forests with hopes of striking it rich. And for what? For nothing more than a few pieces of metal and paper that they call money.

Channelnewsasia situation update

2007-09-22T08:23:00.000-07:00

Channelnewsasia gave a pretty positive reply. They said they'd look into setting up a Science/Nature Section on their site, or increase Nature reporting!

Channelnewsasia

2007-09-20T08:20:00.000-07:00

I just made a request to Channelnewsasia via email for them to set up a Science/Nature section on their website. I hope it gets somewhere.

They do have a technology section, but while technology is Science, Science is not only technology. Is this something about Singaporean mindsets? When people mention Science, its the engineering and physics and chemistry. I don't think Nature comes to mind very often.

Fingers-crossed, hopefully we see some progress here.

Glow-in-the-dark Fungi

2007-09-17T08:11:00.000-07:00

Found this at Meralodge forest. Really cool fungi. Well its not all that uncommon, probably one of the 33 Mycena sp. Its funny though, that people go the sea and look for weird creatures for GFP when maybe its in the forest right behind them.

Well now I hope that people don't read this and go wreck the forest.

On a lighter note, when you see someone board the bus, and he's muddy and sweaty, don't be so quick to label him a "construction worker". He might be your friendly field biologist who's working desperately to keep Singapore's natural heritage!

Help Needed

2007-09-16T11:24:00.000-07:00

Well, this appeal is only open to students doing Biology in NUS and ok with doing nocturnal field work.

NParks doesn't let me do field work on my own! Slow Loris work are best done with one or two people, and since they effectively ruled out "one", then I need someone to go in with me! It doesn't have to be regular, just have to let me know if you are interested and then I'll contact you I have to do a night survey. Anyone?

Latest Update on Slow Lorises on 2007 IUCN Red-List

2007-09-14T18:00:00.000-07:00

Here's what IUCN thinks with regards to distribution.

Native:
Bangladesh; Brunei Darussalam; Cambodia; China; India; Indonesia; Lao People's Democratic Republic; Malaysia; Myanmar; Philippines; Thailand; Viet Nam

Possibly extinct regionally:
Bangladesh; Brunei Darussalam; Cambodia; China; India; Indonesia; Lao People's Democratic Republic; Malaysia; Myanmar; Philippines; Thailand; Viet Nam; Singapore.

Notice that under "Native", there is no mention of Singapore, but under "Possible Extinct Regionally", Singapore is there. Obviously I hope that my project can help "Singapore" hop from the lower category to the upper one.

My Slow Loris Research

2007-09-09T09:01:00.000-07:00

Here's a page that I managed to get posted on thw WildSingapore site, thanks to Kwok Wai and Norman.

HAVE YOU SEEN A SLOW LORIS?

Seen a slow loris? Please contact Fam Shun Deng asap at 92215549 (Singapore number) or +447794832899 (UK number) or famshundeng@tarsier.org

What is a Slow Loris?

The Greater Slow Loris (Nycticebus coucang) is among Asia's least studied primates. They are small, arboreal, nocturnal and inconspicuous. They are known to inhabit primary rainforests, which is present is small patches around Singapore, or logged over secondary forests with canopy corridors, which is not present in Singapore. As such, its habitat areas are severely restricted.

At the 2007 Conference of the Parties of CITES in The Hague, CITES member nations unanimously decided to push Nycticebus to Appendix I, an action that the member nations were compelled to carry out, to protect the species from extinction. As they look very cute to most people, they are hugely popular as pets in many countries in Asia and Europe and are sold in markets in many Southeast Asian countries. Traders circumvent their toxic bite by pulling out their teeth with pliers, which result in many lorises dying from infection. Singapore is a known transit destination for slow loris trafficking, and is the most common seized mammal to enter Singapore illegally. There are also some who believe that slow loris seen in Singapore are escapees from the pet trade as well.

Besides their huge popularity as pets, slow lorises also face pressures from logging and slash-and-burn practices in our neighbouring countries, as they are normally asleep during the day, and have a tendency to stay still and cling on to the tree when they are frightened. Also, they are caught and killed for many other reasons, from the absurd (eating them gives one strength) to the even more absurd (eyeballs for love potions).

Not enough is known about their ecology. Slow lorises often die in captivity from intestinal problems, and diabetic problems. Not enough is known about them for zoos even to optimally take care of them.

About Fam Shun Deng

Fam Shun Deng, currently a Masters Student in Primate Conservation at Oxford Brookes University, United Kingdom. He previously did field research on Nycticebus coucang (the Greater Slow Loris) in Singapore while an undergraduate at the National University of Singapore. He is focussing on the taxonomy and ecology of the slow lorises here, and is also branching into problems with the illegal trade and evolution and biogeography of slow lorises in Southeast Asia. If anyone has sightings no matter they be roadkills or wild or under any other circumstances, they should contact him at 92215549 (Singapore number) or +447794832899 (UK number) or famshundeng@tarsier.org immediately. Any help would be much appreciated as they are probably present at very low densities.

Here's the link, please spread it around! http://www.wildsingapore.per.sg/discovery/news.htm

Tropical Disease Spreading to Europe

2007-09-06T10:23:00.000-07:00

"The Ministry of Health in Italy has confirmed about 160 cases of chikungunya in the Ravenna region in northern Italy.

Travellers have been advised to protect themselves against mosquito bites.

The European Centre for Disease Control urged pregnant women and those with chronic illnesses to seek medical advice before visiting the area.

The villages of Castiglione di Ravenna and Castiglione di Cervia have reported most of the cases.

The main symptoms of the patients were high fever and joint pain, as well as headache, muscle pain, rash and less frequently gastrointestinal symptoms."
- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6981476.stm

This is quite disturbing. Does it mean that climate change has progressed to such a stage that tropical diseases are taking foot in Europe?

My Recent Trip to Thailand

2007-09-02T06:26:00.000-07:00

Well as a number of Year 4 Bio students will know, I'd been missing in action at Thailand to do some loris work and attend a workshop.

We(as in a Thai MSc, Dr. Anna Nekaris and I) went to Khao Ang Runai Wildlife Sanctuary. Its got a field station with some electricity, but guano falls from the ceiling everyday. On our 1st night walk, we recorded 6 lorises. Super cool. My first wild loris sightings. Dr Nekaris kept gushing about the high incidence rate and flat ground and how lucky Manoon (the Thai MSc student) was. And I was thinking how BTNR is the exact opposite. It must seem like a quite shithole if Manoon ever visits.

Khao Ang Runai is a really good place to do wildlife research mainly because of the good terrain and "low leech detection rates", as Dr. Nekaris put it. I still got 2 leech bites though. Besides this research, the other project going on there is one with pileated gibbons (Hylobates pileatus). The sanctuary is known for wild elephants and leopards as well.

Well I would love to post pictures.. BUT I haven't scanned my films and a lot of them are in Dr. Nekaris and Manoon's digital and video cameras. It'll be abt 2 months before I post them I guess. And the dumb airport customs at Survanabhumi Airport insisted I put my camera through an x-ray scanner. I hope it doesnt kill the film inside.

After the field trip, I attended the workshop. Actually, the workshop is only one half of the day. The second half was in fact a meeting between Thai and Cambodian government officials with regards to smuggling of lorises across their borders, and the constant misidentification of loris species. Dr. Nekaris was the technical advisor and I joined her. =p

Basically, for me the whole thing was a wonderful learning experience, but with regards to solving the problems, it was a complete waste of time. The Cambodians refuse to accept that they had a problem (they kept asking for evidence, when it was right there in their markets). While the Thais conceded that there was a problem, they were just sitting on their hands on not committing anything. The Cambodians asked for a bilateral agreement (which is rubbish because it will take years to hammer something out) and the Thais said they had no $$ to train sniffer dogs to sniff out smuggled lorises. No $?! Hah. What nonsense. Sitting right outside the meeting room was about 100 spanking new 4WD trucks sitting in the rain, bought with budget SURPLUS, which they had to spend before the end of the fiscal year. The TRAFFIC representative was talking about training border police and giving training and evaluation support. That was the only thing that they did not have any excuse to not do. Then it kind of hit me that it would take a long time to develop the training packages and they might probably never get done. I thought we were getting nowhere, so I grabbed the microphone and just let rip. Well I didn't exactly tell them to their faces what I thought of them, but I hinted that I think they were trying to not do anything, and I suggested that they use the loris experts currently doing research in the country. I think I shocked Dr. Nekaris a bit. But I think they needed a good kick up their backsides.

Oh and another thing, I think the "Singapore" and "NUS" tag gives you a level of prestige in Thailand somehow.

I think I would like to go back again. Loris taxonomy is in a mess, and maybe once
Nycticebus coucang has its mess sorted out, I'll head to Thailand to help Manoon out with the N.bengalensis mess.

ACRES Wildlife Rescue Centre Fundraising

2007-09-02T06:21:00.000-07:00

AWRC Fundraising, 8th and 9th September
Venue: The Atrium @ Orchard, 60B Orchard Road map
Day/Time: Saturday and Sunday, 10am to 10pm daily
Acres will be organising a public roadshow at The Atrium @ Orchard to raise funds for Singapore's first wildlife rescue, the Acres Wildlife Rescue Centre (AWRC) and to create awareness on many different animal welfare issues through informative educational panels and physical displays depicting the issues, for example toy animals crammed into crates showing how animals are smuggled for the illegal pet trade. Informative brochures are available so you can take home the message with you and share it with your friends and family.

Forms for donation and membership will be available at our booth.
All proceeds go towards our the establishment of the AWRC.

If you would like to volunteer, please email charlene@acres.org.sg

Melting Arctic

2007-08-15T07:39:00.001-07:00

Here's something from the Sunday Times, 12/08/2007.

Well I can't copy and paste or Associated Press will charge me,so the gist of it is below.

Basically, as we all know by know, the Arctic Ice Cap is melting. To some of us, it means rising sea levels, changes in oceanic currents, climate changes; to others, it may mean no more polar bears; to people who like to describe themselves as the following, “intellectual”, “important”, “powerful”, “elite”, “entrepreneurial” and whatever else that they see fit to describe themselves with, it means new oil and natural gas fields, gold, diamond and nickel deposits and a chance to show everyone who bothers and are weak enough follow them who's the boss by winning playground scraps over a share of the Arctic pie.

It is estimated that by 2040 to 2050, the Arctic Ocean will be navigable. In effect, that means little or no ice left. And lots of drilling and boring and rigging and no more wildlife. No polar bears, no seals, no ice, no Eskimos and more flooding in South Asia, more scorching heat waves in Europe and North America. Birders will see no more birds because caterpillar peak seasons will not match hatching seasons and the chicks will all die.

But we get lots of diamonds, and gold to decorate the coffins of those among us who die from heat waves, and drown in floods, and Heaven forbid, the “great” people who found those deposits.

Event Update!

2007-08-14T11:26:00.000-07:00

Organised by: Acres
Venue: The Atrium @ Orchard, 60B Orchard Road map
Day/Time: Saturday and Sunday, 10am to 10pm daily

This National Day Festival that runs from now till 26th August, extend and enrich your celebratory mood with Acres and our fundraising activities while raising funds for the establishment of Singapore's first wildlife rescue, the Acres Wildlife Rescue Centre (AWRC)!

Acres will be having our public roadshow at the Atrium @ Orchard to engage Singaporeans in protecting animals and to take ownership of the AWRC and assist us in our efforts. This will strengthen our community spirit and increase our identity as a compassionate society.

Globally, the illegal trading in wildlife, timber and other natural resources is now surpassed only by the trafficking in drugs and weapons. This ongoing illegal trade has severe consequences for the survival of every species involved. Removing these animals from their natural habitat damages the fragile ecosystems as well as threatens the survival of the species.

This roadshow will raise awareness on the illegal wildlife trade in Singapore, bear farming and other animal protection issues. There will be exhibits on different animal welfare issues through informative educational panels and physical displays/replica models depicting the issues, for example toy animals crammed into crates showing how animals are smuggled for the illegal pet trade.

Fundraising activities:
Merchandise, including our hot-selling T-shirts ($15 each), mugs ($8 each) and colourful badges ($2 each) be sold. So spread compassion and wear a message!
What better way to celebrate our birthday by wear our national colours on your skin! For only $2, get your face or hands painted with cool designs and motifs!
Celebrate the occasion with our animals too! Purchase pictures of pets at $5, photo frame included, and enjoy $1 off when you present yourself in a red outfit!

So visit us at our booth and make a positive contribution to animal welfare and conservation in Singapore!

If you would like to volunteer with us at this event, please contact charlene@acres.org.sg for more details.

*If you are lazy to volunteer then be a nice person and go down to contribute $$ instead ok..

First Nature Post

2007-08-10T13:20:00.000-07:00

I've decided to jump on the increasingly overcrowded bandwagon of NUS Bio Students' Nature Blogs. Now why did I decide to be soooo unoriginal? That's because Nature is so vast, even in tiny Singapore, that all of us cannot cover everything. This is my little contribution to continual biodiversity and conservation education of us. I'm posting this at 4am in the morning, so just let me ramble.

Man evolved intelligence at such a rapid rate that none of the species on this planet even has an inkling of all the cerebral processes that go on in our overstuffed heads that we take for granted. Like blogging, or sms-ing etc. Even so-called "borderline retarded" humans still kick animals' butts in IQ contests. And we get so caught up in our own intelligence, and the illusion of superiority we have over Nature, that members of our species think we own the planet. Until disaster strikes. 26 Dec 2004, is a date many of us remember of a time when Nature decided to bitch-slap us for clearing the mangroves and destroying the coral reefs. For those who haven't realised, the hardest hit areas were places in Indonesia, Thailand, Tamil Nadu and Sri Lanka, where forests and corals were destroyed and pretty beach resorts and ports were built in their place. And yet, Malaysia and low-lying Bangladesh didn't get much damage. Bangladesh is interesting. I'm sure they would like the pretty beach resorts, but they cannot afford to build them. So they leave the mangroves alone. The miles and miles of mangroves probably saved the country. Go google to find out more.

By the way, to the eternal optimists who think that we are too intelligent to kill ourselves and that we will find a way to beat the climate and extinction problem, we are NOT that intelligent. Species are going extinct, by our own doing, without even us knowing that they ever existed. Climate change is affecting the world at such a rapid rate, that even humans die from heat waves and what not. We screwed up the world by trying really hard to screw it up, and it took decades. We'd have to try even harder to unscrew it within the same time period. And so many nations aren't trying. China is talking abt going green for Beijing 2008 and but they are using coal for electricity. The US thinks everyone else should go green but themselves. Our neighbours seem to try desperately hard every year to smoke us out of our own country. Us? Our government signs this green treaty and that and every other, but we are still clearing whatever remaining forests we have and spraying streams with oil to control Aedes (for goodness sakes, they only breed in stagnant water!), and we cut down an 80-year old Angsana Tree because the rich brats we have living here can't keep to the speed limits and think their toys are more important than the tree. (It's like you've been standing outside a PAP kindergarten everyday and watching children run around you until one day, the teacher tells you, "You are in their way. I'll have to kill you.") We have a long long way to go before everyone of us understands the problem.

Oh and one thing about being really intelligent creatures. One thing that has differentiated us from other living creatures is our grasp of Mathematics. Let's look at something basic. Every Primary 2 or 3 kid will tell you that if you divide one by three, you get 1/3; and conversely, 1/3 multiplied by three will give you one. Then the "higher level" kid, perhaps Primary 4, will also tell you that if you divide 1 by 3 and express the answer in decimals, you get 0.3333333333. Of course, the even "higher" level kid, the cocky pure science "O" level kid doing "Additional Mathematics" will add that you can simply write it as 0.3, but with a dot above the 3. And then interestingly enough, the education system says nothing more about this little teaser, and few, in any, students probe further. Let me expand it below.

We have, 1 divide by 3 = 1/3, and 1/3 x 3 =1. We also have 1/3 = 0.333333... If it is true that 1/3 x 3 = 1, then 0.333333... x 3 = 0.999999... = 1.

0.9999999... = 1? Something that's not a whole is a whole. The decimal system. A product of our own intelligence. Go figure.