Month: January 2022

Theme Parks: How Sustainable Are They?


Theme parks such as Disneyland or Universal Studios are extremely popular destinations that attract millions of people annually. These entertainment destinations are also unfortunately sites of environmental pollution, where their operations require a large amount of energy that releases carbon emissions into the air. Furthermore, the carbon emissions released by tourists who visit these theme parks are not minute. For example, it was estimated that 10 million tonnes of carbon emissions are released annually solely by tourists travelling from Europe to Disneyland in Florida, which is equivalent to the annual emissions of the 83 million people living in Ethiopia (Pearce, 2009). This comparison illustrates the colossal amount of pollution released just for tourists to travel to their destination, not considering the energy required to run the theme park itself, which brings into question – how sustainable are theme parks? 

Upon evaluation, I have considered the fact that Disneyland may not be the sole factor for individuals to travel to Florida, and thus it  cannot be seen as the direct cause and effect for the large amounts of carbon emission. However, it should still be acknowledged that Disneyland is in fact a popular tourist destination, one which has heavy influence on tourist activities. Furthermore, Disneyland has also eliminated the use of single-use plastics across the globe, which amounts to a reduction of around 175 million straws and 13 million stirrers annually (Penning, 2018). This illustrates the steps taken by theme park operators to further reduce environmental pollution through reducing the consumption of plastic waste. From this perspective, we can observe how corporations like Disney are making efforts in reducing waste produced.

One question that still remains unanswered would be – are these initiatives enough to combat climate change?

 

References

Pearce, F. (2009) ‘Greenwash: Disney’s green intentions are pure fantasy’, The Guardian, 19 March.

Penning, M. (2019) ‘Disney Expands Environmental Commitment By Reducing Plastic Waste’, Disney Parks . Available at: https://disneyparks.disney.go.com/blog/2018/07/disney-expands-environmental-commitment-by-reducing-plastic-waste/ (accessed January 2022).

 

 

And Cut! How Sony Pictures Entertainment Reduces Environmental Pollution

With the awareness that film production directly and indirectly releases a large amount of carbon emissions into the environment, there have been calls for the film industry to reduce these release of pollutants. These initiatives come in the form of engaging eco-consultants, restructuring waste management and providing greener sustainable alternatives for film operations.

Sony Pictures Entertainment, a film production company, has implemented a green initiative that targets zero waste and cutting its carbon emissions. For example, the initiative recommends that all shows contract with a green caterer, eliminate disposable water (‘Sony Pictures: A Greener World’, n.d.). Furthermore, the studio is advancing their digital workflows such that the alternative to shoot digitally has avoided 20 million feet of film annually, which equivocates to 294 tons of carbon emissions (‘Sony Pictures: A Greener World’, n.d.). As such, this highlights how large film production companies can come up with various green initiatives to combat the existing challenges that derive from the environmental impacts of film production.

Nonetheless, it is important to acknowledge that there are limitations to these initiatives that might compromise the quality of the films produced. For one, shooting on a digital camera cannot capture the same depth that a film camera can achieve, which may impact the cinematography of the film. As such, transitioning into greener alternatives for film production may not be smooth-sailing due to the conflicting interests between sustainability and quality. This highlights just one of the many challenges that film companies might have to transition into greener production.

References

‘Sony Pictures: A Greener World’ (n.d.), Sony Pictures. Available at: https://www.sonypictures.com/corp/pdfs/SonyPicturesAGreenerWorld.pdf?misc=link.

 

The Sustainability of the Film Industry

At first glance, watching a movie on the big screen or on your computer does not seem to have any significant environmental consequence. Being an avid Netflix user and movie goer myself, I have watched at least hundreds of movies and TV show episodes . However, behind the screen, there is an unsustainable environmental reality that plagues the film industry – one which the viewers hardly take notice of.

Looking just at the carbon emission released by the production of the film itself, research has shown that blockbuster films with budgets over 70 million dollars produce an average of 2840 tonnes of CO2 per production, which is equivalent to the amount absorbed by 3,700 acres of forest annually (Hoad, 2020). Considering the numerous number of big budget films produced every year, the statistic above illustrates only an iota of the proportion of carbon emissions produced by the film industry. Additionally, the carbon emissions only serve to measure the air pollution released and does not take into consideration other environmental repercussions such as aquatic or marine pollution caused by chemical dumping during production.

Deep diving into specific films, the producers of the film Pirates of the Carribean: Dead Men Tell No Tales have been fined for unlawful dumping during their film production, where paint and chemical residues were seen to have overflowed into a creek behind the studio set (Laughlin, 2015). These chemical residues consist of substances such as oil, acetone, paint and resin. With an exposure to these chemicals, marine life in the waters are disrupted as the chemicals are toxicants to the animals living in the waters. A snowball effect may be induced as there may be an accumulation of chemicals digested by larger marine animals due to the ecological food chain (Saadoun, 2015). This illustrates an example of how film production can have severe negative pollutive impacts on the environment and how our oblivious demand for movies can have a ripple of negative environmental effects during production.

 

References

Hoad, P. (2020) ‘BFI study calls on film industry to urgently reduce emissions’, The Guardian, 1 September.

Laughlin, S. (2015) ‘Pirates investigated for toxic waste dump’, The Courier Mail, 26 June.

Saadoun, I.M.K. (2015) Impact of Oil Spills on Marine Life, IntechOpen.

 

 

 

The Problem With Refrigerants

Living in Singapore’s warm temperatures, I am a frequent consumer of products and activities that require refrigerants. From the refrigerator that stores my milk to the air-conditioned car that transports my family around, refrigerants have become part and parcel of my everyday life.

In the past, these refrigerants were spotlighted as a huge environmental issue  as when the cooling systems leaked, they released chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) and hydro chlorofluorocarbons (HCFC) into the atmosphere, destroying the ozone layer in the stratosphere (Benhadid-Dib and Benzaoui, 2012). The stratospheric ozone layer helps to absorb ultraviolet radiation from the sun, which has been linked to health hazards such as skin cancer and cataracts, as well as damage to the plant and marine ecosystems (Nunez, 2019). As such, when these refrigerants are damaged and the cooling systems leak and release CFCs or HCFCs, the destruction of the stratospheric ozone layer causes severe damage to the environment.

As such, there have been initiatives put in place by the 1987 Montreal Protocol to phase out and subsequently ban the production of ozone depleting chemicals from 2010 onwards (Gill, 2021). In line with this ban, the National Environment Agency (NEA) in Singapore has been gradually phasing out CFCs and HCFCs, encouraging business owners to make the switch to more ozone friendly alternatives (National Environment Agency, 2012). However, this phasing out does not entirely resolve the issue of environmental pollution as current alternative ozone-friendly refrigerants commonly contain hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). Though not ozone-damaging, these chemicals are much more potent in greenhouse gases, where their global warming potential is thousands of times more than carbon dioxide (Jaiswal, 2017). This then creates another environmental issue, whereby refrigerants produce potent greenhouse gases that trap heat in the environment, worsening global warming and the issue of climate change.

Upon evaluation, the banning of CFCs and phasing out of HCFCs should be regarded as a commendable step towards environmental sustainability. However, it is important to acknowledge the shortcomings of alternatives for refrigerants, where environmental pollution is still a severe problem, especially since they have become extremely integral in our daily lives, most definitely for communities living in warmer climates.

 

References

Benhadid-Dib, S. & Benzaoui, A. (2012) ‘Refrigerants and their Environmental Impact Substitution of Hydro Chlorofluorocarbon HCFC and HFC Hydro Fluorocarbon. Search for an Adequate Refrigerant’, Energy Procedia, 18, 807–816.

Gill, V. (2021) ‘Ozone layer “rescued” from CFC damage’, BBC News, 11 February.

Jaiswal, A. (2017) ‘Climate Action: Global Transition Away from HFCs’, NRDC, NRDC. Available at: https://www.nrdc.org/experts/anjali-jaiswal/climate-action-global-transition-away-hfcs-moving-forw (accessed January 2022).

National Environment Agency (2012) ‘Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) Phase Out Management Plan in Singapore’.

Nunez, C. (2019) ‘The facts about ozone depletion’, National Geographic, National Geographic. Available at: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/ozone-depletion (accessed January 2022).

 

Food in Production: The Environmental Pollution of Pesticides

We often do not think about the environmental repercussions of consuming much of the food that we eat. In reality, to grow and harvest the food that we consume, producers make use of pesticides to protect their crops from pests and to increase their yield of crops (Singapore Food Agency, 2021). These pesticides are chemical compounds that aim to be lethal to the targeted pests but they unfortunately bring a wide range of environmentally pollutive issues with them.

Pesticides become environmentally pollutive when these chemicals reach surface water through runoff from the treated plants and soil. A set of studies done by the US Geographical Survey (USGS) have found that more than 90% of water and fish samples from all streams of the major river basins in the United States contained at least one pesticide (Aktar et al., 2009). These concentrations of these pesticides were also found to have commonly exceeded guidelines for the protection of aquatic life (Fuhrer, 1999). The ecology of marine life is disrupted when these pesticides that pollute surface water come into contact with fish in streams that flow through the croplands, whereby repeated exposure to certain types of pesticides can result in reduced fish egg production, lower immunity to disease and a reduced avoidance of predators, reducing the overall adult survival rate of the fishes (Helfrich and Hipkins, 2009). Furthermore, the toxicity of the pesticides would then further accumulate in the food chain. This illustrates how the usage of pesticides to protect our crops create problems of environmental pollution in the nearby surface waters of the croplands, disrupting the marine ecology of the waters.

Water pollution is only a small component of the environmental pollution caused by the usage of pesticides on crops to feed the demand for food. There are many other negative environmental pollution effects that extend throughout the usage of pesticides and more broadly, throughout the entire food supply chain, of which consumers should be accountable to understand.

References

Aktar, Md.W., Sengupta, D. & Chowdhury, A. (2009) ‘Impact of pesticides use in agriculture: their benefits and hazards’, Interdisciplinary Toxicology, 2, 1–12.

Fuhrer, G.J. (ed.) (1999) The quality of our nation’s waters: nutrients and pesticides, Reston, Va: US Dep. of the Interior, US Geological Survey (US Geological Survey circular, 1225).

Helfrich, L.A. & Hipkins, P. (2009) Pesticides and Aquatic Animals: A Guide to Reducing Impacts on Aquatic Systems, Virginia State University.

Singapore Food Agency (2021) ‘Use of pesticide in food’. Available at: https://www.sfa.gov.sg/food-information/risk-at-a-glance/use-of-pesticide-in-food (accessed January 2022).

 

COVID-19 and the Takeaway Effect

 

In 2020, during the Singapore nationwide partial lockdown, to cater to most of my meals, I would order food through the use of home delivery applications such as Grab or Foodpanda. The accumulation of food packaging in my household by the end of the lockdown was astonishing, whereby there were stacks and stacks of plastic containers on my kitchen shelf. In Singapore, there was an increase of 1,334 tonnes of takeaway packaging being used among households during the months of the partial lockdown (CNA, 2020).

In a broader perspective, research has found that during the COVID-19 pandemic, there was an intensification in the online purchase of food and meals, which lead to an increase in food packaging (Oliveira et al., 2021). Most frequently, Single Use Plastics (SUPs) are used in these food packagings due to their inexpensive nature, but this creates an environmental issue whereby these SUPs are mostly non-biodegradable, persisting in the environment after they has been discarded (Oliveira et al., 2021). Delving deeper into the pollution created by the increase of demand for food packaging, the production of food packagings are also environmentally polluting. For example, the production of aluminium containers emit a lot of energy during their extraction and processing. Annually, the production of aluminium containers in the United Kingdom emits around 167 metric tonnes of CO2-equivalents (Gallego-Schmid et al., 2019). With demand increasing for these food packagings, the production of these aluminium containers would increase in tandem, emitting even more carbon emissions. Thus, this illustrates how COVID-19 and its influence of the surge in demand for food takeouts and subsequently food packaging, have created an issue on the increasing environmental pollution caused by the consumption and production of food packagings.

In retrospect, I believe that it would not be easy to reduce the use of SUPs due to their inexpensive and convenient nature. The COVID-19 pandemic has brought about more concern for hygiene, which in turn, has disallowed consumers from using their own containers for takeaway (Baker, 2020). Such personal environmental initiatives to reduce waste are being shut down by the implications of the COVID-19 pandemic, making food packaging and its environmental pollution an evermore worrying issue.

References

Baker, J.A. (2020) ‘Bring your own containers take a backseat at some eateries amid COVID-19 pandemic’, CNA. Available at: https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/covid-19-bring-your-own-containers-risk-650366 (accessed January 2022).

CNA (2020) ‘New Bring Your Own Container campaign to run at 5 hawker sites’, CNA. Available at: https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/zero-waste-sg-bring-your-own-container-campaign-byoc-1340271 (accessed January 2022).

Gallego-Schmid, A., Mendoza, J.M.F. & Azapagic, A. (2019) ‘Environmental impacts of takeaway food containers’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 211, 417–427.

Oliveira, W.Q. de, Azeredo, H.M.C. de, Neri-Numa, I.A. & Pastore, G.M. (2021) ‘Food packaging wastes amid the COVID-19 pandemic: Trends and challenges’, Trends in Food Science & Technology, 116, 1195–1199.

An Introduction to My Blog

When I was 18, I visited Pulau Semakau on a school excursion. The guide had informed us that the landfill would in the near future, run out of space, especially if Singapore was not able to urgently reduce wastage. To overcome this challenge, the government has initiated to reduce the waste sent to the landfill by 30% by the year 2030, under the country’s Zero Waste Master Plan (Ang, 2019).

Singapore to reduce Semakau waste by 30% under first Zero Waste Master Plan

This master plan outlines a regulatory framework that aims to tackle various categories of waste such as packaging waste and electronic waste (Ang, 2019). Much of these frameworks target the production side of waste and pollution. For example, the framework states that “producers of consumer electronic products must join a producer responsibility scheme, and producers of non-consumer electronic products will be required to provide free take-back services for all end-of-life equipment upon request” (Ang, 2019).  This aligns with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)’s  environmental policy approach of an extended producer responsibility where the accountability for products are shifted upstream towards producers instead of the consumers (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2016).

However, I believe that the demand and consumption of resources brought about by our everyday activities significantly affect the waste produced and the environmental pollution created. Supporting this idea, Ekström (2014) argues that “consumption is a motor of waste production”. Despite the government’s heavy focus on the producer’s side of environmental pollution, there should be an equitable accountability placed on consumers to understand the impacts of our consumption behaviour and the severity of these impacts. As such, this blog will be a way in which I  analyse the ways in which consumption habits by myself and by many others have created unseen and negated environmental pollution issues as well as the establishment of the environmental injustice created by the geographic separation between the privileged and the marginalised (Park and Kwan, 2017).

 

References

Ang, H.M. (2019) ‘Singapore to reduce Semakau waste by 30% under first Zero Waste Master Plan’, CNA. Available at: https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/semakau-reduce-landfill-zero-waste-master-plan-recycling-bins-1338431 (accessed January 2022).

Ekström, K.M. (2014) Waste Management and Sustainable Consumption: Reflections on consumer waste, Routledge.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2016), Extended Producer Responsibility: Updated Guidance for Efficient Waste Management, OECD Publishing, Paris.

Park, Y.M. & Kwan, M.-P. (2017) ‘Multi-Contextual Segregation and Environmental Justice Research: Toward Fine-Scale Spatiotemporal Approaches’, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14.