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.

Cotton tote bags have been reported to cause more harm to the environment! According to the Ministry of Environment and Food of Denmark, cottons bags have to be used 7100 times to offset plastic bags if all environmental indicators such as climate change, ozone depletion, toxicity, eutrophication and resource depletion, were considered. In practical aspects, it is nearly impossible for typical consumers to fulfil the minimum usage of 7100 for a cotton tote bag. Cotton falls short mainly due to the its ozone depletion impact, which is far worse than using plastic grocery bags. Cotton crops require large quantities of water, land as well as fertiliser, creating large environmental footprint. In fact, organic cotton has proven to be even less sustainable, as they are often low yield, thus requiring more resources to produce.

The report by Ministry of Environment and Food of Denmark has proven that best alternatives are reusable/recycled plastic bags made from  woven Polypropylene (PP) or nylon.

Asian people are the biggest recyclers of plastic bags. So when you see a turtle choking, don’t look at us. All of our plastic bags are in the cabinet under the sink. 😂💁🏾‍♂️

— Indian Stats v2 (@Indian_stats) October 29, 2018

In the tweet above, it simply shows how we can prevent environmental damage with simple acts and behaviours. Reusing of plastic bags are highly encouraged as well as proper disposal of waste. However, it still does make sense to use cotton tote bags if we have them lying around the house, which would prevent additional plastic bags from being used/produced, reducing overall single-use disposable waste. If you’re thinking of procure tote bags for a company giveaway, or for school welfare packs, do think twice, as i believe that our homes already have plenty of tote bags lying around, so it may be wiser to just stick with plastic bags. With all the fuss and debates about the best alternative, i strongly believe that reduction is still the best way to fight climate change and resource depletion, don’t take what you don’t need!

Are metal straws killing us, more than they are saving the environment? Quite literally, a metal straw have caused the death of a 60 year old lady last year, where she was impaled through her eye after falling onto an eco-friendly reusable metal straw. With that said, we are here to debunk environmental truths about plastic and metal straws. Is the metal straw truly beneficial for the environment, or is it a costly expression for environmental enthusiast? In order to fully debunk the environmental impact, a life cycle assessment has to be done, which provides us with a rough estimate on the energy required to produce these straws.

LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT

According to the Humboldt State University, the production of a single metal straw produces 149 times more carbon emissions, and requires 102 times more energy than a plastic straw (more date in the table below). This means that you need to replace at least 149 plastic straws with a single metal straw to offset the environmental damage, if not, more harm will be caused to the environment. I personally feel that it is unlikely that the majority of metal straws were able to serve their full purpose, but this reduces the amount of plastic waste generate yearly. Furthermore, metal straws have a much longer use lifespan, and it is fully recyclable, as opposed to plastic. Which boils down to the responsibility of consumers to diligently use their metal straws, and to recycle it if disposal is a must.

Below is a mildly infuriating picture of $3 metal straws, being wrap with a layer of plastic, a real irony. This shows  the relationship that humans are still highly dependent on plastics for hygiene purposes. Though intentions are good, more thought needs to be given towards the process and implications of environmental impacts.

It is also important to note that metal straws do not reverse environmental impacts, but in fact, they continue to consume natural resources and emit carbon from the extraction, manufacturing, and transportation. As such, one must know the issue of straws should be one that requires the reduction rather than replacement, same goes with all reusable items. We should ask ourselves if we really need to use the disposable item, if we really require it, then perhaps consider a reusable alternative. It’s our sustainable behaviour that counts and not how many environmentally-safe products we own.

 

Prior to the recent cancellation of Singapore Airlines’ (SIA) plans of ‘flight to nowhere’, there was much debates revolving around the alternative solutions in bailing out Singapore Airlines from the current economic and health crisis. The intentions of environmentalist against the ‘flights to nowhere’ were directed towards the carbon emissions for a purpose deemed unnecessary, which was to take passengers on the Airbus A-350 for a 3-hours non-essential joy ride. However, we felt that more could be discussed around the actual facts and figures of these flights and it’s environmental impact, putting it into scale.

To put things into perspective, a 3-hr joy ride, which is estimated to be the same flight time require between Singapore to Chiang Mai (Thailand), is expected to produce 0.28 metric tons of carbon dioxide per passenger, according to carbonfootprint.com. 0.28 metric tons (280 kg) of carbon dioxide is closely equivalent to a 1,600km journey on an average petrol powered car. Now that we understand the extent of environmental impact created by a single 3-hour flight, it may be worth noting that in 2019, Singapore’s prestigious Changi Airport served 382,000 flights, which is an average of 1,046 flights per day, or 1 flight every 80 seconds! Shedding light on the extent of air travel on a regular basis, makes the environmental issue regarding the ‘flights to nowhere’ seem like consolation by mother earth, given the substantial cut in air travel due to Covid-19.

Through understanding the extent of this environmental issue, it is not undermine the efforts and suggestions made by environmentalist, but it is good to consider the implication of things through a wider perspective and a larger scale. Other implications are equally important in considering the best option, such as economical and operational considerations like the requirements for pilots to fly in order to retain licenses.  According to the Air Transport Action Group (ATAG), new fuel efficient aircrafts like the Airbus A380 and A220 have the fuel efficiency of most modern compact cars, which is a step in the right direction, given that air transport would probably remain as a necessity for mankind. With that said, the attention given to SIA’s ‘flight to nowhere’ has was indeed a step towards combating environmental issues, mainly carbon emissions and climate change, as it brought positive attention towards climate change, with participation from the community. Such attention and participation from both the community and corporations will go along way in educating and changing the mindsets of consumers and organisations in the long run and the benefits would probably far exceed the reduced carbon emissions from the ‘flights to nowhere’.

 

---

References

Air Transport Action Group. (2020). Facts and Figures. Retrieved from https://www.atag.org/facts-figures.html#:~:text=The%20global%20aviation%20industry%20produces,carbon%20dioxide%20(CO2)%20emissions.&text=Aviation%20is%20responsible%20for%2012,to%2074%25%20from%20road%20transport.

Carbon Footprint. (n.d.). Carbon Calculator. Retrieved from https://www.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.aspx

Changi Airport Group. (2020). Traffic Statistics. Retrived from  https://www.changiairport.com/corporate/our-expertise/air-hub/traffic-statistics.html

Climate Action Tracker. (2020, 30 July). Current Policy Projections. Retrieved from https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/singapore/current-policy-projections/

Energy Efficient Singapore. (2020). Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change. Retrieved from https://www.e2singapore.gov.sg/overview/climate-change

Toh, T. W. (2020, September 13). SIA eyeing ‘flights to nowhere’ to give a life to ailing business. The Straits Times. Retrieved from https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/transport/sia-eyeing-flights-to-nowhere-to-give-a-lift-to-ailing-business

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.

The benefits of renewable energy is well known, and it will most probably be the way forward towards a sustainable future. But have you heard about how corporate firms purchase Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs)? Corporate firms are able to purchase RECs sold on an open market, which represents an amount of renewable energy that is being fed into the energy grid. The RECs is a way for corporate firms to offset their carbon footprint, and as a form of corporate social responsibility.

https://www.ejbasler.com/precision-machining-and-the-environment/ej-basler-renewable-energy-certificate-02-12-2016/

Although the benefits do not directly impact the environment, purchasing of RECs promotes the development of renewable energy. This provide the opportunity for firms to market and promote themselves as “green” or “eco-friendly”, just because RECs were purchased, which deviates from genuine change which firms are capable of making in the long run. Seen as a quick-fix to environmental change, RECs could conveniently diverted the attention of firms away from making genuine changes towards tackling climate change, many of which lie within company processes which could be streamlined or improve to reduce energy/resource consumption or waste reduction.

Although RECs are not necessarily greenwashing, the benefits from buying RECs do not solve the root issue towards climate change but rather, offsetting the effects of climate change isn’t the best or most sustainable way to move forward in the long term. This would also defeat the purpose if RECs provides the incentive for consumers/firms to increase consumption of resource and energy.

 

---

References

Scott, M. (2018, October 29). New rules to crack down on ‘greenwash’ in corporate clean energy claims. Reuter Events Sustainable Business. Retrieved from https://www.reutersevents.com/sustainability/new-rules-crack-down-greenwash-corporate-clean-energy-claims

https://www.eco-business.com/news/development-dilemma-how-did-coal-sneak-into-laos-energy-plans/

Have we truly found a clean alternative to energy? Coal has been known to be the oldest, and dirtiest energy source, which has contributed to 70% of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions, and to be to using it without damaging the environment may seem rather questionable.

There are many different variations to “clean coal”, in which technology has been applied to reduce or mitigate environmental degradation through removing pollutants. In today’s context, “clean coal” makes use of carbon capture and storage (CCS), which allows for the carbon dioxide generated at coal plants to be stored underground in rock formations and aquifers. Though the general idea of underground carbon sequestration may sound like a genius plan, there has been multiple critics revolving around the oversight on other pollutants as well as it’s cost and efficiency.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-basic-principle-for-Carbon-Capture-and-Storage-CCS_fig1_328352287

While CCS is able to capture around 90% of the CO2 produced at power plants, we have forgotten about the other pollutants by coal, such as mercury, nitrogen oxide, and other poisonous pollutants. Would the production of “clean coal” lift the guilt from consumers, thus further increase the consumption of energy? If so,  Furthermore, would this accelerate the depletion of coal since it is a non-renewable resource? Though the reduction in carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is an excellent outcome, these are some of our thoughts with regards to the other considerations towards this technology.

Singapore has recently announced its plans in researching and developing carbon capture use and storage (CCUS) technology as well.

 

---

References 

Cunanan, P. (2018, April 1). Clean Coal Explained: What It Is and Is It Really Sustainable? EcoWarrior Princess. Retrieved from https://ecowarriorprincess.net/2018/04/clean-coal-explained-what-it-is-and-is-it-really-sustainable/

Grossman, D. (2017, August 23). How Does Clean Coal Work? Capturing carbon dioxide and sending it below the Earth’s surface, explained. Popular Mechanics. Retrieved from  https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/infrastructure/news/a27886/how-does-clean-coal-work/ 

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.