Thank you for being part of our writing journey! Throughout this semester, we have shared some greenwashing methods and strategies by businesses and governments. Undoubtedly, there has been greater awareness in sustainability and being environmentally-friendly. For instance, governments from all around the world have been highly encouraging the use of electric vehicles in their countries. Having said that, though many know that electric vehicles are ‘greener’, not many know that the effectivity of the electric vehicles ultimately depends on the energy mix of the country. Increasing numbers of businesses have also started to jump on the sustainability bandwagon, using ‘green’ methods as an advertising gimmick to boost their profits, to attract sustainable consumers. Again, we should also perhaps give a benefit of doubt to those environmentally-friendly businesses. Consumers like ourselves should not only be environmentally-conscious, but should also be more aware and learn how to better identify businesses’ greenwashing tactics.

Once again, thank you for reading our posts 🙂

I’m pretty sure we all came across the 11.11 sales advertisement by Shopee and Lazada whenever we use Youtube recently. With more people shopping online for their goods during the COVID-19, the 11.11 Singles’ Day sales in 2020 is expected to break records in Singapore (Lay, 2020). Singaporeans, in average, spent more than US$1000 each, which is notably higher than the global average of US$634 (Giri, 2020).

Although more and more companies are going green and environmentally-friendly, this sustainable practice doesn’t seem to be applicable for e-commerce. Famously known to be environmentally-friendly, LUSH is even having a 2 hour Flash Sale as well during the 11.11 sales period on Shopee (Teh, 2020). Why is the 11.11 Singles’ Day Sales bad then? The increased e-commerce spending will also result in the rise of the plastic packaging generated. You see, when you purchase goods online, especially fragile goods, you will definitely expect more packaging involved (boxes, tapes, bubble wraps, foams) so that it will secure and prevent the item from being damaged. So to prevent refund or returned items, the retailers will wrap more than needed for the items online (Giri, 2020). Moreover, despite the increased in recycling practices, only a mere 5% of the plastic packaging is recycled in China (Stanway, 2019). Besides the potential worsening of plastic pollution online shopping can cause, increased in online shopping can also increase the demand for last-mile delivery by 78% in 2030, which produces more carbon emissions from the online shopping deliveries.

We, as consumers, defintely need to reflect upon our own consumption patterns. Rather than to recklessly buy because there is a massive sale ongoing on, we really need to be more mindful with our purchase and not impulsively ‘add to your cart now‘ just because Lee Minho told us to do so.

---

References

Giri, A. (2020, November 10). Commentary: The 11.11 sale is great except for the plastic waste it generates. Channel News Asia. Retrieved from https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/commentary/11-11-sale-plastic-waste-sustainability-13498306

Stanway, D. (2019, November 11). On Singles’ Day, green groups warn of China’s surge in packaging waste. Reuters. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-singles-day-pollution-idUSKBN1XL0A4

Teh, J. (2020, October 27). Did you know Shopee 11.11 Big Sale has started? Techielobang. Retrieved from https://techielobang.com/blog/2020/10/27/shopee-11-11-big-sale-has-started/

Whiting, K. (2020, January 10). Online shopping is polluting the planet – but it’s not too late. World Economic Forum. Retrieved from https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/01/carbon-emissions-online-shopping-solutions/

Just a few days ago, Apple declared that it will remove its chargers and earphones, so as to allow “70% more boxes to be shipped on a pallet” which will “cut over 2 million metric tons of carbon emissions annually” since it requires smaller packaging sizes, to become a carbon-neutral business by 2030. At first glance, it certainly sounds great — a famous business trying its best in reducing its carbon emissions and environmental pollution impacts, making the business in general more sustainable and greener.

When taking a closer look, however, it is not as green as we thought. With the removal of chargers and earphones, buyers should technically get a discount for it. However, this is not the case for iPhone 12. Apple is in fact using the name of sustainability, to cut its costs while profiting more from the sales of iPhone 12. Besides that, the new iPhone cable is apparently not even compatible with the older version chargers. It takes relatively longer time to charge the iPhone 12 with the older chargers. With this, it actually encourages consumers like us to buy the newer chargers.

Perhaps, the best way for Apple to be more environmentally-friendly is to make iPhone more long lasting and easier to repair. That being said, that’s quite impossible considering that Apple is ultimately a profit-making business.

---

References

Booth, C. (2020, 11 November). Your new iPhone 12 should be $38 cheaper. The Next Web Plug. Retrieved from https://thenextweb.com/plugged/2020/10/15/new-iphone-12-cheaper-charger-earbuds-earpods-analysis/

Engels, A. (2020). Smartphones without chargers: Greenwashing attempt from Apple and Samsung. NextPit. Retrieved from https://www.nextpit.com/smartphones-without-chargers-apple-samsung-greenwashing-attempt

Ng, L. (2020, 17 October). Apple’s Latest Greenwashing Stunt. Medium. Retrieved from https://medium.com/swlh/apples-latest-greenwashing-stunt-35328094011a

Mishra, V. (2020, 22 October). Apple: Thinking Inside the Box. Counter Point Research. Retrieved from https://www.counterpointresearch.com/apple-thinking-different-inside-box/#:~:text=Removing%20chargers%20and%20earphones%20would,year%E2%80%9D%2C%20according%20to%20Apple.

Upcycling is repurposing the waste we intend to throw, to create something new with the waste, reducing the waste we produce. It sounds like a good idea, right? It reduces the waste we produce, minimises the carbon emissions, and also reduces the pollution issues from the excessive waste we produce from our consumption and production habits (Wilson, 2016). Nevertheless, upcycling may not be as green as it looks. The plastic waste used to upcycle and repurpose the new products are actually taken from the plastic that could and would be recycled (Hrovat, 2018). Upcycling inevitably continues to encourage the use of plastic, instead of actually reducing the plastic consumption.

Upcycling of wooden pallets can also be detrimental to the environment, because more trees are being chopped down since upcycling technically cuts the pallet’s life span (Grocer, 2019). Therefore, upcycling may not be environmentally-friendly, though many businesses may use upcycling as a marketing technique to attract consumers that wants to be sustainable, consumers need to understand the potential problems of upcycling as well. It is not to say that upcycling should be stopped, but we need to consider changing our consumption habits first.

---

References

Grocer. (2019, November 30). Upcycling of wooden pallets is bad for environment, warns IPP. NLA Media. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.libproxy1.nus.edu.sg/docview/2319664943/citation/639FA5C120A549EBPQ/1?accountid=13876

Hrovat, N. (2018, October 18). How Upcycling and Environmentalism are Turning to Shit and Creating Even More Issues. Medium. Retrieved from https://medium.com/@nejahrovat/how-upcycling-and-environmentalism-are-turning-to-shit-and-creating-even-more-issues-9ce5fafc173d

Wilson, M. (2016). When creative consumers go green: understanding consumer upcycling. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 25 (4), pp. 394- 399.

Owning a reusable things seems to be a trend lately. I was always skeptical regarding reusable things, especially reusable straws and reusable cup holders, since it is kind of a hyped-up thing, and not really for the sake of saving the environment. That being said, I used to think that reusable cups, however, is a completely different thing and looks more useful and effective in reducing the footprint of disposable cups. While scrolling the web to find out more greenwashing topics to write for this blog, I was mildly surprised to see a Mothership article saying that bamboo reusable cups are not always environmentally-friendly. According to Stiftung Warentest, they mentioned that bamboo cups often contains melamine resin in it, which is basically some sort of plastic used in children’s dishes. Despite most of the bamboo reusable cups state that these cups are biodegradable because it is made of bamboo, it does not actually decompose after years, which creates environmental pollution problems during the disposal.

Although going green and using reusable things are the trend now, we (the consumers) need to be able to identify reusable products that may be potentially greenwashed by businesses, as they may be using such products to gain more profits, and not really doing it for the sake of the environment! 🙁

---

References

Stiftung Warentest. (2019, 23 July). Bamboo cups in the test: Most of them release high levels of pollutants. Retrieved from https://www.test.de/Bambusbecher-im-Test-Die-meisten-setzen-hohe-Mengen-an-Schadstoffen-frei-5496265-0/

Zheng, Z. (2019, November 15). Bamboo reusable cups are not always biodegradable & can be harmful to health. Mothership. Retrieved from https://mothership.sg/2019/11/bamboo-reusable-cups-environment/

Just a few days ago, The Straits Times, Channel News Asia and Today all reported that scientists from Nanyang Technological University (NTU) have found that plastic bags actually produces fewer carbon emissions, as compared to its other reuseable counterparts, such as cotton bags, polypropylene non-woven plastic bags, and paper bags. The scientists had made such conclusion after analysing and assessing the life-cycle of plastic grocery bags, from the production, distribution, transportation, all the way till the treatment and disposal of the plastic bags. Interestingly, they argued that kraft paper and cotton woven bags creates the most harm to the environment, out of the many types of bags they have tested. In fact, these bags may result in “abiotic fossil depletion, freshwater-, marine- and terrestrial- ecotoxicities, human toxicity, acidification and eutrophication potentials.” (Ahamed et al., 2020). According to the study, in order for renewable bags to be more environmentally-friendly than plastic bags, it has to be used more than 50 times (Tan, 2020).

We often have this misconception that once we change from disposable things to reuseable ones, it will automatically be more environmentally-friendly. However, this seems to only work if we actually use those renewable things enough times. Linking back to the previous blogpost, tote bags are often freely given away by organisations, with so many tote bags, is everyone going to use more than 50 times for each of the tote bags and other reuseable bags we have? I doubt so. Most of the time, the reuseable stuff may be greenwashed by businesses, to show to the consumers that they are doing their part to ‘reduce their carbon footprints’.Therefore, reduction is the best way to reduce our emissions, since it will certainly reduce the emissions we are constantly producing.

---

References

Ahamed, A., Vallam, P., Shiva, N., Veksha, I., Bobacka, J., & Lisak, G. (2020). Life cycle assessment of plastic grocery bags and their alternatives incities with confined waste management structure: A Singapore case study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 278 (2021), p. 123956.

Tan, A. (2020, 14 October). Plastic bags can be more eco-friendly than cotton & paper bags in S’pore: NTU study. The Mothership.  Retrieved from https://www3.ntu.edu.sg/CorpComms2/clips/2020/10_Oct/Plastic%20Bags/mothership.pdf.

In the previous blog post (Renewable Energies: Part 3), we talked about how hydropower energy is cleaner than the traditional fossil fuels since it does not produce much carbon emissions, but it still results in thermal pollution. For this, we will focus more on how hydropower plants may potentially produce noise pollution.

When we think about the noise produced by the hydropower plants, we probably assume that the noise we can hear is just the sound of the artificial waterfall and has some sort of calming sensation (like the ones we listen to on Spotify).

However, it is not necessarily the case for hydropower plants. In a study conducted by Carvaloa, Leroyb, Calixtoc and Borgesd (2005), the noise produced by the hydropower plants is comparable to the noise produced by an airplane engine.  In fact, the noise produced by the hydropower plants can be as high as 120 decibels, which is even louder than the noise produced during a rock concert (White, 2012).

Also, it was mentioned that most workers working in the hydropower plants are not equipped with proper protective equipment to block out the noise produced in the powerhouse (Carvaloa, Leroyb, Calixtoc & Borgesd, 2005).  In the Bureau of Reclamation in United States, it was said that 20 to 25% of the worker’s compensation costs are due to hearing loss compensation (White, 2012). Besides just resulting in hearing loss, loud noise produced by the hydropower plants can cause sleep disturbance, heart diseases and other health problems (Berndt, 2018).

This shows that hydropower plants may not be as good as what most people may think. Yes, hydropower plants are definitely a better and cleaner source for production of energy. But, just because it produces less carbon emissions does not mean that it does not pollute the environment at all, which shows how thermal and noise pollution are not taken as seriously compared to other pollution, such as, air pollution and water pollution.

---

References

Berndt, A. (2018, December 10) Sound advice. Internatinal Water Power & Dam Construction. Retrieved from https://www.waterpowermagazine.com/features/featuresound-advice-6891522/

Carvalhoa, M. L. D. U., Leroyb, W., Calixtoc, R. J., & Borgesd, C. I. (2005) Noise Evaluation of Hydroelectric Power Plants. Inter-noise Rio 2005: the 2005 International Congress and Exposition on Noise Control Engineering, Rio De Janerio, 2005.

White, T. J. (2012, March 26). Stop that ‘Dam’ Noise: ONR and Nation’s Engineers Tackle Noise at Hydroelectric Plants. Office of Naval Research Science & Technology.  Retrieved from https://www.onr.navy.mil/en/Media-Center/Press-Releases/2012/Noise-Dam-Hydroelectric-Power-ONR 

While researching about the possible environmental pollution that may result from hydropower plants, an article managed to catch my eye. It was “Thermal Pollution Caused by Hydropower Plants” by Alaeddin Bobat. The first thought that comes to mind was, huh? Got such a thing as thermal pollution meh? Before reading that article, I had never known that thermal pollution is in fact a type of environmental pollution.

According to Bobat (2015), thermal pollution can be defined as “the change in the water temperatures of lakes, rivers, and oceans caused by man-made structures or industries”. When the temperature increases in these water bodies, it may inevitably detriment the ecosystem and aquatic life living there. Not only that, the production of waste heat is common during the generation of hydropower electricity. Thus, in order to keep the temperature low during the use of the power plants, they are often built close to water bodies because of the constant supply of cool water.

With even a marginal increase of water temperature, aquatic species that are more sensitive may die whereas species that are more adaptable and less sensitive to water temperature change will thrive in that condition (Menon, Singh & Kumar, 2000). This can be linked to how the pollution can affect different species differently, depending on their sensitivity to the polluted environment. For instance, cold water fish, as its name suggests, is more sensitive, thus the natural stocks of cold water fish may reduce significantly because of the warm heat produced by the hydropower power plants near the water bodies (Bobat, 2015). Besides that, the increase in water temperature can also make the organisms living in these water bodies to be more vulnerable to diseases and also result in algae blooms because of the large bacteria and plant growth (Bobat, 2015).

Even though hydropower power plants often cause thermal pollution to nearby water bodies, the thermal pollution impact is not as significant as compared to fossil fuel and nuclear power plants since the change in water temperature is not as high (Bobat, 2015).

Although I have mentioned earlier that thermal pollution may detriment the ecosystem and organisms living in the waters, it can also extend fishing seasons as well (Bobat, 2015). Therefore, though hydropower power plants can cause thermal pollution in the water bodies which may negatively impact the aquatic organisms and the ecosystem, the impact may be more muted since the increase in water temperature is not as drastic as compared to typical fossil fuel and nuclear power plants.

---

References

Bobat, A. (2015). Thermal pollution caused by hydropower plants. Energy systems and management, pp. 19-32. Springer: Cham.

Menon, A. G. K., Singh, H. R., & Kumar, N. (2000). Present eco-status of cold water fish and fisheries. Coldwater fish and fisheries, pp. 1–36. New Delhi: Narendra Publishing House.

Solar energy is considered a renewable energy – because of how the sun’s energy is always infinite. It is a cleaner alternative as compared to traditional fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas, since it reduces the greenhouse gases emissions and pollutants by reducing the usage of coal-fired power plants. So how does the sunlight turn into the electricity we use?

Solar photovoltaic technology directly turns the sunlight into electricity and does not cause land, ecological and environmental problems (Qi & Zhang, 2017). Nonetheless, this does not mean that solar energy is completely flawless. During the manufacture of the crystalline silicon, phosphoric acid, hydrofluoric acid, and sodium hydroxide are used during the removal of phosphorus silicon glass (Yu et al. 2008). These chemicals, however, may produce organic wastewater residuals that remain in the sewage systems which results in wastewater pollution (Qi & Zhang, 2017).

Besides creating wastewater pollution, the production of polysilicon (part of the materials needed for solar panels) may produce numerous toxic chemicals (silicon tetrachloride) and by leaving silicon tetrachloride exposed in damp air would form silicate and hydrogen chloride (Hill, 2012). Hydrogen chloride may end up forming a strong hydrochloric acid, which is highly corrosive in nature. For instance, the Mujiaqiao River, near a solar panel production plant, had fluoride concentrations ten times greater than the permitted level, causing danger to human lives and the ecosystem system in 2011 (Yang, Huang & Thompson, 2014).

Hence, it is important to consider other forms of pollution other than air and water pollution during the use of renewable energies to produce energy. Having said that, solar energy may be a tool to transition to carbon-free society, though it also comes with its problems.

---

References

Hill, M. K. (2012). Understanding Environmental Pollution. Cambridge University Press. 

Qi, L., & Zhang, Y. (2017). Effects of solar photovoltaic technology on the environment in China. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 24(28), pp. 22133-22142.

Yang, H., Huang, X. J. & Thompson, J. R. (2014). Tackle Pollution from Solar Panels. Nature, 509(1), p. 563. 

Yu J., Che J.T. & Zhang J. Y. (2008). The Overview of the Technique of Solar Energy Generating Electricity. World Sci-Tech R & D, 30(1), pp. 56-59.

Voser, who is Shell’s CEO, once mentioned that natural gas is the ‘cleanest-burning fossil fuel’ (Ailworth, 2013). I guess most of us have the impression that natural gas is automatically ‘cleaner’ than its fossil fuel counterparts because the burning of natural gas is more efficient than coal, which produces less emissions than coal and oil (Borunda, 2020). For instance, Singapore has gradually transitioned from depending on oil for energy to natural gas during the 2000s as it is deemed to be cleaner than oil (Tan, 2019). However, natural gas may not be as clean as it looks.

Firstly, natural gas is primarily comprised of methane, which is known to be more effective in trapping heat in the atmosphere as compared to carbon dioxide (Borunda, 2020). Thus, if the natural gas leaks from the gas pipe and to the atmosphere, it will result in greater methane emissions produced, which is worse than just producing carbon emissions because of its potency.

Because the use of natural gas is so widely distributed, it is extremely difficult to accurately calculate and monitor the actual methane leakage during the production and distribution (Chandler, 2020). With that, policymakers do not actually know the real environmental cost of natural gas because of the poor detection of methane emissions and leaks. Therefore, the leakage rate must maintain a very low rate in order for natural gas to be cleaner than oil or coal.

Besides that, the act of fracking for natural gas may not be entirely clean. It may contaminate the water and air, affecting both the environment and people staying near those areas (Dillen, 2017).  According to the Natural Resources Defense Council (2014), these fracking activities may cause cancer and affect the nervous and respiratory systems, harming human health through the ‘exposure to diesel particulate matter, hydrogen sulfide, benzene’ and other volatile hydrocarbons.

How about liquefied natural gas then? Are they cleaner since the leakage rates may be lower than natural gas? Not necessarily though. The process of converting from gas to liquid state and the transportation of the liquefied natural gas may result in the emissions being about the same as coal production (Dillen, 2017). So do you think that natural gas is a true ‘bridge’ to renewable energies?

---

References 

Ailworth, E. (2013, March 22). Shell’s CEO says gas will lead way. The Boston Globe. Retrieved from  https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2013/03/21/shell-oil-chief-clean-energy-here-and-called-natural-gas/J7zM4USxeKiXanQzKPvDRM/story.html 

Borunda, A. (2020, Feburary 19). Natural gas is much ‘dirtier’ energy source than we thought. Natural Geographic.  Retrieved from https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/02/super-potent-methane-in-atmosphere-oil-gas-drilling-ice-cores/#:~:text=Natural%20gas%20is%20a%20much,carbon%2Dwise%2C%20than%20we%20thought&text=Methane%20gas%20leaks%20from%20the,fuel%20industry%20than%20previously%20thought.

Chandler, D. (2020, January 13). Gas infrastructure leaks methane: fix it, or accelerate to clean energy. Energy Post. Retrieved from https://energypost.eu/gas-infrastructure-leaks-methane-fix-it-or-accelerate-to-clean-energy/ 

Dillen, A. (2017, October 30). Here’s the dirt that industry won’t tell you about “clean” natural gas. Earth Justice.  Retrieved from https://earthjustice.org/blog/2017-october/here-s-the-dirt-that-industry-won-t-tell-you-about-clean-natural-gas 

Natural Resources Defense Council (2014). Fracking Fumes: Air Pollution from Hydraulic Fracturing Threatens Public Health and Communities. Retrieved from https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/fracking-air-pollution-IB.pdf 

Tan, A. (2019, October 29). Singapore will continue to rely on natural gas admist push to boost solar capacity: Chan Chun Sing. The Straits Times.  Retrieved from https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/environment/singapore-will-continue-to-rely-on-natural-gas-for-the-next-50-years-chan-chun#:~:text=Singapore%20is%20moving%20towards%20a,natural%20gas%20plants%20more%20efficient.