The real motivation behind having sustainable development

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/cities-must-be/1430708.html?cid=TWTCNA

In the news item in the link above, President Tony Tan says that "Cities today must be sustainable and liveable to attract the best and the brightest talent". In other words, sustainable development is important because of economic reasons. Some might say that this is at least something positive. However, I believe that to  fully understand the gravity of the situation, our politicians must realise that not hurting the environment is important not only because of the economy, but also because there is an intangible value to keeping our environment sustainable. We are merely custodians of the earth before we hand it over to the next generation. Let's make sure we do not hand over spoiled goods.

Living Planet Report 2014

Singapore has always been regarded as a "Garden City". Trees are seen at almost every corner of the island and the Garden City slogan has been repeated so many time almost every Singaporean knows about it. When we think of a Garden City, an image of an environmentally-friendly city springs to mind. But how environmentally-friendly is Singapore really? According to the Living Planet Report 2014 by the World Wide Fund for Nature, Singapore has the seventh largest per capita Ecological Footprint of the 152 countries studied. Therefore, we cannot always take what is popular to be true.  A honest review of Singapore environmental impact must be done so that we are able to tackle the important environmental problems that face the world.

http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/mewr-responds-wwfs-living-planet-report-2014

Animals in Captivity

The recent controversy regarding the Pink Dolphin at Underwater World Singapore who is suffering from skin cancer has raised concerns that keeping animals in captivity is in humane and detrimental to their health. Sea Shepherd  Singapore and Wildlife Watcher, environmental NGOs, have issued a report in the link below exposing the substandard living conditions of these animals. Should animals be kept in zoos? While proponents may assert that keeping animals in zoos serves an educational purpose, I believe that their main objective is profit acquisition. The educational effect of keeping animals in captivity does not outweigh the detrimental effect it has on the animals' health and quality of life.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/t0b9xjaezzv2nyi/DolphinLagoonUWSSingapore.pdf?dl=0

This short news clip highlights how hard it is politically to get change on the issue of greenhouse gas emissions. The republicans in the USA are even willing to cause a government shutdown to block a proposed 30% emissions cut in greenhouse gases by 2030. Politicians must set aside their differences before we are to get any traction on the issue of tackling climate change.

Climate Change Debate

As a student in BES, I have always assumed that the fact of climate change has always been settled. However, watching this debate on climate change I have a much more nuanced understanding of the difficulties faced in the environmental movement.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOU306AvvHE

Environmental Satire

A very funny bit from Jon Stewart about the recent People's Climate March in New York City highlighting the difficulty in getting political progress on climate change even in the House of Representatives of supposedly the world's biggest superpower.

Just a short post. I was just thinking about the terms 'Saving the world' or 'Saving the environment' and asked myself, does the environment really need saving? Sure, humans are having a great impact on the environment, enough for the term 'anthropocene' to be used to describe the current time period, but is the environment really that helpless? Over the course of the earth's history, there has been much more inhospitable conditions on earth as compared to what we have now. Yes, there has been significant climate change now but nature has always had a way to adapt and thrive in the harshest of conditions.

I believe using the terms mentioned above is inaccurate and is not useful in the cause of mitigating climate change. A more appropriate term would be 'Saving ourselves'. Why? While nature is the master of surviving, the same cannot be said of humans. The rising sea levels, pollutants, and overall drastic environmental change are causing some populations to struggle especially in the less developed countries. When we move forward with solutions to environmental change, these groups of people must always be in our thoughts as they bear the brunt of environmental change yet do not receive any substantial benefits.

Perception of climate change in the media

The media is an important tool in getting the public to be concerned about climate change. Here is a short clip of Bill Nye, a popular science educator, and Marc Morano, an economist debating the effects of climate change.

The problem with this is that there are still people in powerful positions who hold the view that climate change is not an imminent threat to our survival as a species. Until we get their mindsets to change, our future generations will suffer from our lack of mitigation of this issue.

The Copenhagen Calamity

Climate change is very much a global issue. It affects every single one of us living on earth. However, as an individual, we don't really have much of impact on this issue. If I were to suddenly change to a zero carbon output lifestyle, would global climate change be affected even in the slightest bit considering the activities of my 7 billion neighbours on earth? A bit too pessimistic for an environment studies student? I like to look at things as they are. The fact of the matter is the politicians of the most important countries in the world aren't even serious when it comes to climate change. As can be implied from the title, I'll be discussing the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, also known as the Copenhagen Summit.

The Copenhagen Summit included the 15th Conference of the Parties (COP 15) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the 5th Meeting of the Parties (MOP 5) to the Kyoto Protocol. At the previous United Nations Climate Change Conference in 2007 at Bali, a framework for climate change mitigation beyond 2012 was to be agreed at the Copenhagen Summit. The main thing that came out of the Copenhagen Summit was instead the Copenhagen Accord. The Copenhagen Accord is not legally binding and was merely 'taken note of' by the 193 states present at the Copenhagen Summit. 

Regardless of the content of the Copenhagen Accords, the fact that it was merely 'taken note of' just shows the level of difficulty in bringing a group of nations together to agree on a deal to limit emissions at the cost of economic growth. Political consensus has not yet matched up to the scientific consensus on climate change. This is important as the future of the earth's climate is in the hands of our leaders. While we do also have a part to play, the impacts of their decisions far outweigh anything the a normal person can do. The science of climate change has been settled. Its time for the politics of climate change to move forward to safeguard our future.

The march of the Environmental Amigo has begun

This is my first ever blog post. The whole conception of this blog is the result of a module I'm taking as a part of the Bachelor of Environmental Studies course in NUS. Still a bit daunted by the prospect of posting scholarly articles at least once a week and my views on them. So, I'd like his post to be more of a warm-up to the later posts which have more relevance to the environment per se.

However, I would like to take this opportunity to give the reason why I'm taking the Bachelor of Environmental Studies. The main reason underpinning why I chose this course was that I always had a great sense of justice. What i mean by this is that I find it hard to accept situations where punishments or rewards are dealt out in an inequitable manner.

But why Environmental Studies specifically? Environmental Studies because I do believe that this is the largest problem faced by humanity and is the source of the largest inequality I believe. There are two main aspects to this, there is inequality both economically and temporally.  How is it fair that while people in developed countries (Singapore included) are able to pollute and live such luxurious lives, people in less developed countries bear the brunt of rising sea levels (The Maldives actually face a legitimate existential threat from rising sea levels!)? How is it fair that the future generation suffers the effects of pollution, whose deleterious effects can last a very long time, by this current generation?

These two questions are not the only reasons why I chose this course of study but they are indeed the most important factors and do seem to gain the most traction with my friends when I talk to them about the importance of the environment. I'll guess that this will end this post. So sorry if this was a poor first post. I'll promise I'll get better as my blogging skills get up to speed!

Signing off,
Enviromigo