#15: Passing on the Message

madeleineshutlerThe Solution

A New Social Movement 

When it comes to tackling pollution, governments are embroiled within state or international politics, economics and at times more pressing social issues. As such, local or community level responses are equally important in the fight against pollution. At the forefront of this, is environmental activism, a movement that has garnered new traction in today’s digital age of the Internet and Social Media. 

 

The Effectiveness of Activism (Conserve Energy Future, 2020): 

First and foremost, collective action provides hope and inspiration. An argument against environmentalism that is often cited is that one’s individual actions are too small to inflict change. Environmental activism with the creation of green groups or social media communities provide a sense of solidarity and proper organisation to the movement (Kong, 2019). This fuels the longevity of the movement since there is a sense of camaraderie and working towards a common goal. 

 

“The environment is where we all meet; where we all have a mutual interest; it is the one thing all of us share”

~ Lady Bird Johnson

 

Secondly, it provides crucial education to the general public. By raising awareness regarding consumer habits, national legislation and effects of environmental degradation, activism can aid governmental educational efforts while at the same time provide a critical lens to keep national policies in check. For instance, in the recent 2020 Singapore General Elections, @sgclimaterally and @theweirdandwild activists on Instagram, broke down each political party’s environmental policies and gave them aggregate scores. This put pressure on each party to ensure their policies were in line with the environmental needs and wants of future generations. 

 

Check out the environmental activists links here:

https://instagram.com/theweirdandwild?igshid=1opztb6bk9vox

https://instagram.com/byebyeplasticbags.sg?igshid=nvton8rdhawl

https://instagram.com/nocarrierpls?igshid=1bjavd7cc6k2p

https://instagram.com/lilearthgirl?igshid=1cy5a7zjfss2z

 

Thirdly, it puts pressure on the private sector. With a large group of people increasingly involved in green goals and environmental change, corporations are increasingly aware that their own practices and behaviour can easily come under fire for being non environmentally friendly. This drives private firms to rethink their practices, including “limiting carbon footprint, reducing waste, enhancing energy efficiency…employing eco-friendly innovative technologies” (Conserve Energy Future, 2020). 

Last but not least, Gerlach (2001) highlights that social movements such as environmentalism have the benefits of challenging the social and political norm while their large and fast spreading nature make it difficult to suppress (particularly in today’s digital age), penetration of different socioeconomic classes, promotes diversity in the movement thus leading to greater social innovation and problem solving. 

Given these benefits, it is heartening to see that environmental activism in Singapore is gaining fast traction. Inspired by the famous activist Greta Thunberg, an online protest was held in March 2019, with people sharing their proposed policies and business measures to combat climate change on Instagram and Facebook with the hashtags #climatestrike and #climateactionsg.

 

Figure 1: Singapore’s Online Activism movement (Source: Kong, 2019)

This was followed by Singapore’s first ever Climate Rally on September 21st, with speeches from local activists and a “die-in” that reflected the gradual collapse of the planet that humanity is heading towards. 

https://youtu.be/GctvPizE93k

If such public declarations of environmentalism support is not your cup of tea, there are less overt ways of activism that one can adopt today. This includes the concept of anti-hauls, which encourages consumers to rethink their purchases and stop their support for brands and products that do not align with their values (Forbes, 2017). Such a concept can be significant in encouraging de-materialisation and the slowing of consumerism within the environmental movement. 

Moreover, Singapore has multiple green groups that promote environmentally friendly habits and products that can help us in our own environmental journey. Click here for a useful list of them.

 

At the end of the day, it is up to each of us to do our part in fighting environmental pollution and its heavy consequences! Such individual action is at the crux of the solutions to pollution and the main call to action behind our @thepollutionrevolution blog posts. Below are the key highlights of the past 15 blog posts and we urge everybody to continuously learn and grow in our journey to end pollution. 

 

 

Author: Madeleine Shutler

 

References: 

Conserve Energy Future. (2020, May 15). Importance, Types and Excellent Examples of 

Environmental Activism. Retrieved July 24, 2020, from https://www.conserve-energy-future.com/importance-types-examples-environmental-activism.php 

Gerlach, Luther. (2001). The structure of social movements: Environmental activism and its 

opponents. Networks and Netwars: The Future of Terror, Crime, and Militancy. 

Forbes, J. (2017, April 21). There’s A Seriously Problematic Side to All Those YouTube Hauls People 

Love. Retrieved July 24, 2020, from https://www.allure.com/story/anti-hauls-take-over-youtube 

Kong, Y. (2019, July 09). Protesting for the planet: Is climate activism alive in Singapore? Retrieved July 

24, 2020, from https://www.eco-business.com/news/protesting-for-the-planet-is-climate-activism-alive-in-singapore/ 

 

#14: Two Sides of the Coin – Comparing Pollution Action in Singapore and South Korea

madeleineshutlerThe Solution

Environmental Pollution, particularly household pollution or pollution we face on a regular basis, is a common problem globally in today’s highly urbanised world. As such, many lessons can be learnt from the various approaches different countries take in the fight against pollution. Today’s article does a cross comparison of two countries with similar pollution profiles – Singapore and South Korea. Both these countries in the past have faced pollution from plastic and excessive waste, and occasionally experience air pollution in the form of haze events and fine dust pollution respectively. However, South Korea’s environmental success stems from a largely top-down approach while Singapore’s environmental movement has garnered new speed from an increasingly bottom-up takeover. 

 

South Korea’s Top-Down Approach:

The South Korean government has ramped up its efforts against pollution in the past few years. In 2019, it legally designated the problem as a “social disaster”, enabling the government to tap on its $2.65 billion emergency reserves to fund policies combating Korea’s fine dust pollution (Chung, 2019). Examples of such policies include a mandate for every school classroom to contain an air purifier, and a cap on the sales of vehicles that run on petroleum, and artificial rain experiments. Such an approach legitimizes the fight against air pollution that South Korean residents have to face regularly, and have great potential to eradicate this health hazard. 

 

Figure 1: South Korea’s mandatory recycling (Source: The Straits Times)

 

Another environmental success of South Korea is its recycling and waste management system. In 2013, the government launched a compulsory recycling scheme, that included food waste recycling and special biodegradable bags.

 

Figure 2; South Korea’s Recycling Bags (Source: Livinko)

 

On average, households pay $6 a month for these bags, which contributes to 60% of the scheme’s total running cost (Chang, 2016). Households are expected to separate plastics and food waste accordingly, placing them into their respective bags before the trash is collected at fixed hours (6pm to midnight). Should the separation be found to be incorrect, the bags can be returned to the household since their address is recorded on the bag. Violation of the rules also warrants a 1 million won fine. Smart bins across Seoul also weigh food waste automatically and charge residents on an ID card. This motivates residents to reduce the overall volume and hence weight of their food waste, by for instance, removing all moisture first (Broom, 2019). As reported in a 2017 government study, these measures have enabled South Korea to recycle more than 85% of its total waste (Global Recycling, 2019). 

 

Singapore’s Bottom-Up Approach:

This mandatory recycling scheme is a world away from Singapore’s recycling programmes. Recycling in Singapore is on a self-motivated basis, though NEA has launched multiple National Recycling Programmes. There is however, a healthy amount of skepticism surrounding the final end point of the recycle bin trash collected. Boh (2019) reports that often up to 40% of its contents are contaminated with items that are non-recyclable, rendering the entire collection useless while reflecting the lack of awareness and education amongst Singaporean residents towards recycling. Furthermore, most public housing apartments have rubbish chutes on each floor, greatly trumping the searching for recycling bins that most Singaporeans perceive as an inconvenience. All in all, this has rendered Singapore’s recycling rate to hover at around 20 percent since 2005. Unsatisfied with this number, environmental activists have recently capitalised on the growth of social media to promote and raise awareness regarding environmental issues like pollution. This movement has led to a surge of community based and the beginnings of a bottom up approach in combating Singapore’s pollution issue. Prominent activists that catalysed this movement, particularly among the youth in Singapore are the @theweirdandwild, @lilearthgirl, @byebyeplasticbags.sg and @nocarrierpls on Instagram; eventually leading to the formation of Singapore’s first ever autonomous Climate Rally in 2019. 

 

Figure 3: The Youth Organizers of Singapore’s first Climate Rally (Source: The Straits Times)

 

In a similar fashion, community action was also prevalent in Singapore’s response to the Southeast Asian Haze events it encounters annually. During the 2015 event, many members of the community began to boycott companies that were linked to the forest fires in Indonesia, catalysing a social movement that stopped support for such pollutive events (Baker, 2015). This garnered great traction and many independent groups were formed to further such boycotts, research and awareness campaigns, including the People’s Movement to Stop Haze (PM Haze). Top-down approaches by the Government to tackle the haze may be restricted by its transboundary nature, bilateral relationships and bureaucratic tape but community based approaches such as the above harness consumer power and attack the companies profit making margins, directly influencing their very motive to start such forest fires. This shows the growing importance and effectiveness of bottom-up approaches in Singapore, including their potential to tackle more and more environmental issues in the future. 

Overall, both approaches have their respective benefits and their effectiveness depends on cultural context. Both Singapore and South Korea demonstrate that be it through national or community self-motivated movements, greater awareness and education about the severe threat of pollution and waste is the first step to achieving social change. 

 

Author: Madeleine Shutler

 

References 

Baker, J., & Si. (2015, October 9). Many will boycott products from haze-causing firms: Poll. Retrieved July 23, 2020, from https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/environment/many-will-boycott-products-from-haze-causing-firms-poll 

Boh, S. (2019, June 14). Singapore wants year of zero waste. But it’s rubbish at recycling. Retrieved July 23, 2020, from https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/health-environment/article/3014403/singapore-wants-year-zero-waste-its-rubbish-recycling 

Broom, D. (2019, April 12). South Korea once recycled 2% of its food waste. Now it recycles 95%. Retrieved July 23, 2020, from  https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/04/south-korea-recycling-food-waste/ 

Chang, M. (2016, April 23). Culture shock over South Korea’s mandatory recycling of food waste. Retrieved July 23, 2020, from https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/culture-shock-over-south-koreas-mandatory-recycling-of-food-waste 

Chung, J. (2019, March 13). South Korea steps up fight against pollution, says problem is ‘social disaster’. Retrieved July 23, 2020, from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-southkorea-pollution/south-korea-steps-up-fight-against-pollution-says-problem-is-social-disaster-idUSKBN1QU08E 

Global Recycling. (2019, September 19). South Korea: The Aim Is a Resource-Circulating Society. Retrieved July 23, 2020, from https://global-recycling.info/archives/3205 

 

#13: One Man’s Trash is Still Another Man’s Trash

AliciaThe Solution

Now let’s talk about the impact we have when we dispose of household objects we don’t want with the intent of someone else reusing the item, or the item being recycled into more useful materials. Huge amounts of waste are produced annually in 1st world countries, and to lessen that guilt and environmental cost, many people attempt to at least recycle some of their waste. While recycling is definitely a more eco-friendly solution than simply incinerating all trash, we often overestimate its environment-saving potential. Moreover, indiscriminate recycling, or aspirational recycling, actually serve to hinder, and even nullify the benefits of recycling.

 

The act of recycling usually comes from a good place, but lack of information and laziness often reduce the potential goodness that can come from this waste solution. Thus, it is important to learn a couple things about how recycling is actually carried out by waste management companies.

 

  1. Throwing non-recyclables into a recycling bin hinders the recycling process.

Did you know? Non-recyclable items in recycling bins can cause an entire batch of recyclables to be thrown into the landfill or incinerator. This is because non-recyclables such as greasy pizza boxes and low-grade plastics can contaminate other perfectly recyclable objects. Moreover, it is difficult for waste management companies to sift out a few of these offending objects amidst tonnes of recyclable waste. Recycling companies still depend on making a profit after all, and it is not cost-efficient to employ people to sort through every object recycled. This required cost to manage recyclables, combined with the decreasing prices for selling recyclables, put pressure on recycling companies to package and export recycling more hastily. Not to mention, in 2018 China greatly reduced the imports of “foreign garbage” (Albeck-Ripka, 2018), banning certain types of recyclables and only accepting recyclables that are no more than 0.5 percent contaminated (World Trade Organisation, 2017). This means that much more recycling is in fact going to landfills, especially if people recycle indiscriminately. Do your part and check out this list of non-recyclables.

 

2. Recycling still negatively impacts the environment, just at a slower rate.

There are limitations to recycling. Not only does a portion of recycling still routinely end up being incinerated or dumped, but the process of recycling also consumes energy and emits pollutants. Many countries are still dependent on exporting their recycling to other countries who are willing to process it. This process requires fuel to sort through and transport recycling to the designated country. Moreover, increased fuel consumption also means more air pollution generated as a result of burning fuel. While recycling is a beneficial process, it may be more effective to reduce the rate of consumption altogether by encouraging reuse of objects, thus reducing waste output, as shown in this TED talk video below:

 

 

3. Clothing recycling is not as effective as we are likely to believe.

Have you ever come across a clothing recycling bin in fast fashion stores like H&M (below)? While clothing retailers might lead you to believe that you can lessen the burden of fast fashion by recycling clothes, the technology required to properly recycle clothing is unable to catch up with the sheer speed of consumption. Not only does the process of breaking down clothing fibres reduce the quality of the fibres, but the amount of clothing being thrown out is too much to process with the current level of technology (Bain, 2016). A lot of fabric is still dumped in the trash, and the remainder is being ‘donated’ (read: dumped) by the tonnes in developing countries like Africa, where it causes further damage at its final destination (Rodgers, 2015).

 

Author: Alicia Tiu

 

References

Albeck-ripka, L. (2018, May 29). Your Recycling Gets Recycled, Right? Maybe, or Maybe Not. Retrieved July 22, 2020, from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/29/climate/recycling-landfills-plastic-papers.html

Bain, M. (2016, November 30). Recycling or donating your unwanted clothes “is not a solution” for the planet, Greenpeace says. Retrieved July 22, 2020, from https://qz.com/849209/greenpeace-takes-aim-at-clothes-recycling-for-doing-next-to-nothing-to-reduce-fashions-environmental-footprint/

Miller, K. (2017, January 14). 13 Advantages and Disadvantages of Recycling. Retrieved July 22, 2020, from https://futureofworking.com/13-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-recycling/

Rodgers, L. (2015, February 11). Where do your old clothes go? Retrieved July 22, 2020, from https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30227025

We Want Refill. (2018, August 14). Aspirational Recycling: When Good Intentions Have Harsh Consequences. Retrieved July 22, 2020, from https://wewantrefill.com/aspirational-recycling-when-good-intentions-have-harsh-consequences/

 

#12: So what can we do?

AliciaThe Solution

Now that we are more aware of the ecological impacts of the household objects we buy, as well as the harmful chemicals that may be released into our homes, what steps can we take to reduce these negative impacts? The most effective method is to be a mindful consumer: to reduce the number of items we buy and to know what we are purchasing.

 

This method of reducing consumption and making our purchases last longer is known as dematerialisation. It is the process of getting more out of fewer purchases. If you are interested in how dematerialisation works (on a large scale), check out this TED talk below:

 

 

This philosophy can be applied to our ordinary, daily lifestyle. Even little changes can make huge differences: An average Singaporean uses roughly 156 plastic bottles, 156 polypropylene plastics (think bubble tea cups!), and 208 plastic bags a year (Singapore Environmental Council, 2018). Imagine, if you only used a reusable bottle and a reusable nylon bag throughout an entire year, you would be saving 156 plastic bottles, 156 plastic cups and 208 plastic bags! We can apply this logic to most other purchases which we quickly consume and then trash. From clothing to electronics (do you really need a new phone every two years?!), to even food products, we can afford to reduce consumption of these items without really reducing the amount of happiness we derive from consuming these products. Moreover, instead of purchasing brand new items, we can alternatively purchase second-hand items, so that perfectly good stuff thrown out by other people do not immediately end up in the trash.

 

Dematerialisation also involves being more mindful of what we are purchasing; it is buying objects that can last longer, and have fewer impacts on our health and on the environment. For example, when we buy cheap polyester clothing, each time we wash the fabric, microplastics shed from the weave and are washed down the drain (Roos, 2017). These microplastics eventually end up in polluting our oceans and poison our fish. What we can do is reduce the amount of polyester clothing that we purchase, and instead opt for more durable cotton and organic weave clothing that we can use for longer periods of time without replacement. Alternatively, we can opt for purchasing services to repair objects, instead of replacing them willy nilly. Being aware of what we are purchasing also involves checking the label of our purchases, to see if there are any potentially harmful chemicals in them that could leech out into our air or water.

 

Author: Alicia Tiu

 

References:

Earth Day. (2018, March 29). Fact Sheet: Single Use Plastics. Retrieved July 21, 2020, from https://www.earthday.org/fact-sheet-single-use-plastics/

Mistra Future Fashion (2017). Microplastics Shedding from Polyester Fabric Report. Retrieved July 21, 2020, from http://mistrafuturefashion.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/MFF-Report-Microplastics.pdf

Singapore Environment Council (2018). Consumer Plastic and Plastic Resource Ecosystem in Singapore. Retrieved July 21, 2020, from https://sec.org.sg/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/DT_PlasticResourceResearch_28Aug2018-FINAL_with-Addendum-19.pdf

Sutherland, R. (2016). 2016 : WHAT DO YOU CONSIDER THE MOST INTERESTING RECENT [SCIENTIFIC] NEWS? WHAT MAKES IT IMPORTANT? Retrieved July 21, 2020, from https://www.edge.org/response-detail/26750

#11: Smelling Like Death

AliciaThe Problem

Another hallmark of the modern home is our attempt to make it smell fresh and pretty. Air fresheners can be seen in almost all homes, being placed in bathrooms and cabinets to cover any bodily scents and even often placed on top of ventilators in cars. Some people even attempt to substitute essential oils and other types of aromatherapy with air fresheners in order to save money (case in point, me).

 

However, lots of air freshener companies are rather vague when it comes to listing the ingredients on the back of the package, often writing only “XX fragrance” on the label (Made Safe, 2020) (below). Such non-disclosure could indicate questionable ingredients that may not be the most beneficial for users’ health.

 

 

On doing a little digging, I found a list of harmful chemicals that are routinely found in air freshener products. These include PAHs and VOCs (Steinemann, 2017; Made Safe, 2020):

  • 1,4-Diclorobenzene: This is known to reduce lung function, making one more vulnerable to respiratory disease
  • Acetaldehyde: This is a probable carcinogen.
  • Benzene: This is a known carcinogen, which also causes developmental problems in children.
  • d-Limonene: This is known to cause irritation. This substance is a sensitizer, which means it’s likely to increase the risk of future allergic reactions.
  • Formaldehyde: This is a known carcinogen.
  • Phthalates: This is associated with effects from endocrine disruption, including causing damage to the female reproductive system, as well as birth defects.

 

The amount of exposure to these chemicals is quite substantially increased as well with regular usage of air fresheners. Some studies have shown that certain electric air fresheners emit up to 17% of the Critical Exposure Limit for formaldehyde on their own (Schwartz, 2019), while other studies showed much larger emissions, up to 40% of the Critical Exposure Limit (Steinemann, 2017). This exposure is magnified when you consider using other potential emitters like cleaning agents and aerosol sprays simultaneously. Glade, a popular brand of air freshener in Singapore, produces scented oils which emit 4.5 parts per million of Phthalates (Natural Resources Defense Council, 2007). This moderate exposure, when combined with other indoor air polluters, can mean significant daily exposure to Phthalates.

 

Even in lower quantities, these emissions should not be considered ‘completely safe’ because we use tons of chemicals in our homes. These emissions could cause much worse compounded effects on our health than we may realise. Now that you know about the possible harmful pollutants in air fresheners, you can either opt to chuck them out for good or do more research into the brands that you consume before you buy them.

 

Author: Alicia Tiu

 

References:

Made Safe. (2020, February 21). Toxic Chemicals in Air Fresheners Lead to Indoor Air Pollution. Retrieved July 19, 2020, from https://www.madesafe.org/toxic-chemicals-in-air-fresheners/

Natural Resources Defense Council. (2007). Protect Your Family from the Hidden Hazards in Air Fresheners Retrieved July 19, 2020, from https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/fairfresheners.pdf

Schwartz, S. (2019, October 29). Your air freshener may be harmful to your health. Retrieved July 19, 2020, from https://www.considerable.com/home/cleaning-organizing/are-air-fresheners-bad-for-you/

Steinemann, A. (2017). Ten questions concerning air fresheners and indoor built environments. Building and Environment, 111, 279-284. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.11.009

#10: The Dark Side to Singapore’s Light Pollution

madeleineshutlerThe Problem

Why is it so difficult to see stars in Singapore? 

Light pollution affects 80% of the globe, and has intensified in the past century given technological advances and the fast-paced globalised century we live in, where economic and social ventures do not pause even at night. It is not surprising then, that Singapore, a global hub, ranks first in light pollution (Panko, 2016) (Figure 1). Here, light pollution refers to “the inappropriate or excessive use of artificial light” (Drake, 2019), as defined by the International Dark-Sky Association (Figure 2). 

 

Figures 1 and 2: Light Pollution (Source: National Geographic)

 

In many countries, including Singapore, light is seen as a proxy for development, reflective of the nightscape many of us picture when we imagine major global cities. 

 

Figures 3 and 4: The Nightscapes of Shanghai, Singapore and New York City respectively (Source: Unsplash) 

 

Edelson (2017) argues that illuminated nightscapes have become a criteria upon which global cities compete for world recognition. The ‘LED-ification’ of major world buildings, such as the Empire State Building, tie the city’s nightscape to ideas such as full maximisation of a buildings energy and power even at night, artistry and theatrical design that incites intrigue and excitement, and new vibrant visual identity. Such ideas and branding can be powerful as seen by New York City’s age old nickname – ‘the city that never sleeps’, placing the city on the economic and social capital world map. Singapore has also embraced such economic and social ventures linked to the lighting up of night through the following developments (Koh, 2018):

 

  1. Brightly lit streets at night – The Land Transport Authority actively maintains the over 95, 000 streetlights, lighting of bus stops, linkways and road crossings. 
  2. The Rejuvenation of the Central Business District – In a bid to create new public spaces, street lighting of the CBD and Civic District was to be increased, bringing life and vibrancy back into the ghost town that it becomes at night. 
  3. Night Events and Activities – The launch of many leisure activities that primarily take place at night, including the Singapore Night Festival and the i Light Singapore art installations. 

 

The vibrant nightscape that Singapore has developed over the years, answers the questions of why many Singaporeans grow up without seeing many stars in the sky. It is now more relevant than ever to begin to question, beyond the value of green spaces in Singapore, should equal importance be placed on conserving “dark spaces”? 

Chepesiuk (2009) argues that light pollution has numerous health and environmental effects that drive the need to control and regulate excessive lighting. For the former, exposure to artificial light at night (ALAN) disrupts the natural 24-hour day to night cycle (circadian clock), thereby affecting critical processes such as hormone production, brain wave patterns, and cell regulation that are tied to this natural rhythm. This can lead to a slew of medical disorders including cardiovascular disease, obesity, cancer, insomnia, mood disorders and delayed sleep-phase syndrome. Such a condition such as delayed sleep-phase syndrome, referring to the condition whereby one sleeps very late at night and experiences difficulty in waking up for day engagements, is extremely alarming as many do not realise they experience it due to its prevalence in society today and lack of awareness surrounding it.

For environmental impacts, Chepesiuk (2009) documents how light pollution affects flora and tree species from adjusting to variations in season and temperature accurately, and can negatively change the migratory and breeding cycles, general behaviours, foraging and hatching areas for turtles, birds, reptiles and insects. Prominently, tens of thousands of migratory birds are killed annually in New York City, killed crashing into high-rise buildings after blinded by bright ALAN. When one considers such a number multiplied across major cities worldwide that likely experience the same situations, and once again multiplied for the foreseeable future, such a statistic is extremely alarming in regards to long term ecological impact. Perhaps once and for all, it is time we switch off some lights. 

 

Author: Madeleine Shutler

 

References 

Chepesiuk, R. (2009). Missing the Dark: Health Effects of Light Pollution. Environmental Health Perspectives, 117(1), A20-A27. doi:10.1289/ehp.117-a20 

Drake, N. (2019, April 3). Our nights are getting brighter, and Earth is paying the price. Retrieved from 

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2019/04/nights-are-getting-brighter-earth-paying-the -price-light-pollution-dark-skies/ 

Edelson, Z. (2017, November 06). How LEDs Will Make Or Break The Skylines Of Global Cities – Architizer Journal. Retrieved July 18, 2020, from https://architizer.com/blog/practice/details/how-leds-will-make-or-break-the-skylines-of-global-cities/ 

Koh, M. (2018, February 26). Light Pollution in Singapore – Is Public Lighting a Boon or Bane? Retrieved July 18, 2020, from 

https://thateconstutor.com/2018/02/20/light-pollution-singapore-public-lighting-boon-bane/ 

Panko, B. (2016, June 10). Nighttime light pollution covers nearly 80% of the globe.

 

#9: Cooking Up a Storm

AliciaThe Problem

Today, we will be looking at another invisible source of pollution in the home. With pollutants this deadly, it makes the topic of air pollution rather personal. The offending object in question is the gas stove. While people have been transitioning from gas cooking to induction cookers in the modern home, a large proportion of people in the world still use gas stoves, some believing that it produces a higher quality of food. 

 

Gas stoves may be cleaner than other forms of stoves which use fuels like wood and coal, however, as with any form of combustion, it is capable of outputting harmful gases:

As you can see in the above news report video, gas stoves have been known to sometimes emit gases like nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO2) and formaldehyde (HCHO). These emission levels can vary but are much higher faulty and dirty gas stoves. Each of these gases is harmful in their own ways: 

 

  • Nitrogen dioxide can dissolve in moisture in the air to form nitric acid, and these tiny acid aerosols can be easily inhaled into the lungs where it can cause irritation and inflammation (Hill, 2010). NO2 is also shown to reduce the effectiveness of the immune system, thus increasing susceptibility to colds (Ciencewicki, 2007). 
  • Carbon monoxide is often known as the ‘silent killer’, able to cause the loss of consciousness, heart failure and death of those exposed, often without them realising it (Hill, 2010).
  • Formaldehyde similarly causes irritation in the eyes and nasal passage, as well as headaches and nausea, and is also a known carcinogen in higher doses (Hill, 2010; Minnesota State Department of Health, n.d.).

 

These gases are mostly a product of incomplete burning, which is inefficient burning that is not fully able to reduce the natural gas to carbon dioxide and water vapour. This means that these gases are more likely to occur when the gas stove is not functioning properly. You can tell that this problem is occurring when you notice an orange flame from your gas stove, rather than a blue one. When you notice this, have your gas stove repaired in order to prevent exposure to the above toxic gases. Also, you can attempt to clean the air intake holes to allow the gas stove to have more ventilation, allowing the burner to have enough inflow of oxygen for burning (Lee, n.d).

 

Moreover, these gases are able to accumulate in the kitchen if there is poor ventilation. Not having an outflow of air prevents these gases from escaping. Even in a properly functioning stove, these gases are released in minute concentrations, and, if allowed to accumulate in an enclosed room, they can also bring about harmful effects to the exposed person. Thus, always ensure sufficient ventilation while cooking. You can do so by always turning on the stove hoods and vents when cooking, and if possible, by opening up windows and doors in the kitchen (Nicole, 2014).

 

Author: Alicia Tiu

 

References:

Ciencewicki, J., & Jaspers, I. (2007). Air Pollution and Respiratory Viral Infection. Inhalation Toxicology, 19(14), pp. 1135-1146. https://doi.org/10.1080/08958370701665434

Hill, M. (2010). Air pollution. In Understanding Environmental Pollution, pp. 117-154. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840654.006

Lee, V. (n.d.). Why Is My Gas Stove Burning Orange? Retrieved July 12, 2020, from https://www.hunker.com/12003355/why-is-my-gas-stove-burning-orange

Minnesota State Department of Health. (n.d.). Formaldehyde in Your Home. Retrieved July 12, 2020, from https://www.health.state.mn.us/communities/environment/air/toxins/formaldehyde.htm

Nicole, W. (2014). Cooking Up Indoor Air Pollution: Emissions from Natural Gas Stoves. Environmental Health Perspectives, 122(1). https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.122-A27

Roberts, D. (2020, May 07). Gas stoves can generate unsafe levels of indoor air pollution. Retrieved July 12, 2020, from https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2020/5/7/21247602/gas-stove-cooking-indoor-air-pollution-health-risks

#8: Poison in a Spray Can

AliciaThe Problem

This next common household pollutant might feel obviously harmful to you, but how much do we really know about the insecticides we freely spray to keep cockroaches and other insects away? We are going to explore how knowing which insecticides to use and how to use them in the home is significant to you, the average homemaker.

 

You may recognise some common brands of insecticides in Singapore being mentioned here, including: 

  • Baygon (Propoxur)
  • Shieldtox (Chlorpyrifos)
  • And the notable mention, mothballs (Naphthalene)

 

A quick search in NEA’s document of registered pesticides can tell you what the main active ingredient is in your household insecticide. These chemicals are for general use. This means that while some monitoring is done to make sure the insecticides are sold in acceptable concentrations, there is little regulation on how much is used at each time, and how it is used. The marketing companies are supposed to include usage recommendations on the product packaging by themselves. Despite the fact that household insecticide has become quite commonplace and that we rarely think twice about picking up the insecticide spray, there is actually a lot we do not know about the effects of insecticide use. 

 

First of all, especially in the use of aerosol spray cans, insecticides are released into the air as both water droplets and aerosols. While the water droplets will fall out of the air, the aerosols are tiny enough to be suspended in the air for hours. This is how the chemicals involved can be easily breathed in by unwitting humans (Hill, 2010). Moreover, the aerosols can be unknowingly deposited on the skin and absorbed into the body. Because the aerosols remain suspended in air for quite some time, it does not only affect the insecticide user. Anybody in the household, including children and pets can breathe in the chemicals.

 

Moreover, most of these chemicals (notably propoxur, chlorpyrifos and naphthalene) are semi-volatile organic compounds, which means they can change between matter states rapidly (Hill, 2010). This also makes it a lot easier to breathe in the chemicals unknowingly in their gaseous form. Moreover, the aerosol form of propoxur and chlorpyrifos can persist on surfaces like plush toys and cloth furnishings for up to two weeks (Whyatt, et. al., 2007), meaning that the exposure to the toxic chemicals extends far beyond the spraying of insecticide.

 

Now let us look into the harmful effects of the toxic chemicals themselves. All of these chemicals are at the very least severe irritants, causing irritation to surfaces acutely exposed to the chemical (eyes, skin) and, if breathed in, the lungs. Moreover, there is evidence showing that young children exposed to chlorpyrifos had developmental disorders and slower reflexes (Hu, 2018), and both propoxur and naphthalene are known human carcinogens (National Center for Biotechnology Information, n.d.). 

 

The harm of naphthalene does not just stop there. Naphthalene is a polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon, which makes them difficult to degrade. The chemical is able to persist for long periods of time in the environment, and when inhaled or ingested, can be bioaccumulated in fat (Hill, 2010). This means that the effects and health risks from the chemical can be magnified with each exposure. This is bad for wildlife as well, as the bioaccumulation of the chemical can cause large health impacts to animals further up the food chain.

 

It seems the exposure to such chemicals should be kept to an absolute minimum where possible. But in the modern household, not using insecticide may seem hard to do. Here are some tips to reduce health risks to yourself and your family members if using insecticides cannot be avoided:

  1. Ensure enough ventilation when using insecticides, to allow the outside air to dilute the toxic gas.
  2. If possible, place surfaces that have insecticide droplets on them (especially carpets and other fabric surfaces) outside to allow the chemicals to fully evaporate and be blown away.
  3. Don’t use mothballs, but if you have to, place them in sealed containers. Only open the containers outside.

 

Author: Alicia Tiu

 

References:

Dich, J., Zahm, S. H., Hanberg, A., & Adami, H. O. (1997). Pesticides and cancer. Cancer causes & control : CCC, 8(3), 420–443. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1018413522959

Hill, M. (2010). Air pollution. In Understanding Environmental Pollution (pp. 117-154). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840654.006

National Center for Biotechnology Information. PubChem Database. Propoxur, CID=4944, https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Propoxur (accessed on July 10, 2020)

National Center for Biotechnology Information. PubChem Database. Chlorpyrifos, CID=2730, https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Chlorpyrifos (accessed on July 10, 2020)

National Center for Biotechnology Information. PubChem Database. Naphthalene, CID=931, https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Naphthalene (accessed on July 10, 2020)

National Environment Agency.  (2019). List of Registered Public Health Pesticide and Repellent Products. Retrieved from  https://www.nea.gov.sg/docs/default-source/default-document-library/approved-list-of-pesticides-(june-2019).pdf (accessed on July 10, 2020)

Whyatt, R. M., Garfinkel, R., Hoepner, L. A., Holmes, D., Borjas, M., Williams, M. K., Reyes, A., Rauh, V., Perera, F. P., & Camann, D. E. (2007). Within- and between-home variability in indoor-air insecticide levels during pregnancy among an inner-city cohort from New York City. Environmental health perspectives, 115(3), 383–389. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.9546

Hu, X. (2018, August 26). The Most Widely Used Pesticide, One Year Later. Retrieved from http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2018/widely-used-pesticide-one-year-later/ (accessed on July 10, 2020)

#7: Cleaning Up Our Act

madeleineshutlerThe Problem

The Cleansing Products that are Dirtying the Environment 

In 2018, a study was done by the UC Boulder team, to measure North American urban air pollution in the form of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) which upon interaction with sunlight, form ozone and particulate matter – two forms of air pollutants that drastically affect human health and overall urban air quality.  High levels of benzene were recorded from vehicle exhaust but unexpectedly equally high levels of D5 siloxane were also found. This pollutant is not found in vehicle emissions but instead is a common ingredient base for shampoos, lotions and deodorants. Analysis highlighted that siloxane levels were the highest during morning peak hour, leading researchers to propose that such personal-care products were the culprit behind the siloxane pollution. 

This study highlighted that as technology drives cleaner vehicle engines and fuel, urban air pollution may increasingly come from other sources, often which remain largely unresearched and hence of concern. Coggan (2018) argues that ‘personal plumes’ from such beauty products, particularly their chemicals and fragrance components can be as big of a contributor to ozone as the vehicle one takes to work. This then increases the risk of negative health impacts associated with ozone (Figure 1), which is associated with asthma, lung and heart conditions and premature death.

 

Figure 1: Health Effects of Ozone and Air Pollution (Source: Edgy, 2019)

 

Another well known cleansing product that contributes widely to pollution is that of facial wash.  The 2018 St. Ives Apricot Facial Scrub scandal catalysed global awareness regarding microbeads, a pollutive component of many skincare products that makes its way into our waters and global commons. They are defined as small plastic particles below 5 mm (Kaalcikova, 2017) and are often used as exfoliants or enhancers in face washes, scrubs and toothpaste (Barrett, 2016). 

 

Figure 2: St. Ives Facial Scrub at the centre of the controversy (Source: Pai, 2019)

 

A lawsuit was filed against St. Ives, alleging that these microbeads caused microscopic tears in the skin, leading to permanent skin damage (Pai, 2019). However, aside from this negative health effect, microbeads also affect the environment in the form of aquatic pollution, in turn impacting the health and habits of aquatic organisms:

  • It can affect the root length and cell viability of aquatic plants like duckweed (Kaalcikova, 2017)
  • It can impair swimming of rotifers and sea urchins (Gambardella, 2018)
  • Bioaccumulation of microbeads can result from mistaken consumption of microbeads by zooplankton in replacement of food. This leads to the accumulation of microbeads in marine creatures like fish and oysters, building up in the food chain before their eventual consumption by humans (Barrett, 2016). 

The health effects of microbeads on humans are yet to be fully determined but research has shown that they potentially bind with other toxins, including PCBs, causing harmful effects when consumed (Barrett, 2016). In line with the “Precautionary Principle”, referring to the need to act based on not fully 100 percentage scientific evidence, due to the plausible risk to the general public, scientists have advised the public and private sectors to eradicate the use of microbeads. As such, in 2015, US, Canada and several EU nations passed a ban against microbeads. In terms of consumer action, the Beat the Bead campaign has developed a free phone application that scans product barcodes to check for plastic components. Consumers can also look out for the following ingredients to protect themselves and the environment (Aldred, 2016): 

  • polyethylene (PE)
  • polypropylene (PP)
  • polyethylene terephthalate (PET)
  • polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA)
  • polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) 
  • nylon

 

Author: Madeleine Shutler

 

References 

Aldred, J. (2016, April 19). Microplastics: Which beauty brands are safe to use? Retrieved July 07, 2020, from https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/19/microplastics-which-beauty-brands-are-safe-to-use 

Barrett, T., & *, N. (2016, October 03). Microbeads: Bad for You, Bad for the Environment. Retrieved July 07, 2020, from https://www.insurancejournal.com/magazines/mag-features/2016/10/03/427839.htm 

Coggon, M. M., Mcdonald, B. C., Vlasenko, A., Veres, P. R., Bernard, F., Koss, A. R., . . . Gouw, J. A. (2018). Diurnal Variability and Emission Pattern of Decamethylcyclopentasiloxane (D5) from the Application of Personal Care Products in Two North American Cities. Environmental Science & Technology, 52(10), 5610-5618. doi:10.1021/acs.est.8b00506  

Edgy. (2019, April 16). Do Your Personal Cosmetics Cause Plastic Pollution? Retrieved July 07, 2020, from https://edgy.app/cosmetics-cause-plastic-pollution 

Gambardella, C. (2018). Ecotoxicological effects of polystyrene microbeads in a battery of marine organisms belonging to different trophic levels. Marine Environmental Research, 141, 313-321. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2018.09.023 

Kalcikova, G. (2017). Impact of polyethylene microbeads on the floating freshwater plant duckweed Lemna minor. Environmental Pollution, 230, 1108-1115. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.07.050 

Pai, D. (2019, September 12). Everything You Need to Know About the St. Ives Face Scrub Lawsuit. Retrieved July 07, 2020, from https://www.glamour.com/story/st-ives-apricot-scrub-lawsuit 

#6: The Makeup Industry: Not So Pretty After All?

madeleineshutlerThe Problem

The Link between Makeup and Pollution 

A few days ago, I was scrolling through Instagram when I came across an advertisement for “anti-pollution” makeup, a Dream Urban Cover Foundation by Maybelline that promised “essential protection against the effects of urban life” (Maybelline, n.d) by reinforcing a protective barrier against pollutants and harsh weather. A quick Google search dive revealed that this “anti-pollution” trend was not recent news but had become popular since 2019 (Figure 1), with companies offering ranges of anti-pollution skincare, makeup and facials, marketed in respect to the urban pollution we are exposed to daily. Such products aim to shield the face from pollution or either penetrate deeper layers of skin to cleanse it of nanoparticles and dirt (Niven-Phillips, 2019) 

 

Figure 1: The Rising Trend of “Anti-Pollution” Beauty 

 

Indeed, such a trend highlights the growing awareness surrounding the pollution that comes with our 21st century urban lifestyles. What is ironic however, is the beauty industry highlighting such pollution while their own hands are not clean themselves. The manufacture and marketing of beauty products, from skincare bottles to the composition of makeup products itself, the industry is stained with pollution at every stage. 

Indeed, such a trend highlights the growing awareness surrounding the pollution that comes with our 21st century urban lifestyles. What is ironic however, is the beauty industry highlighting such pollution while their own hands are not clean themselves. The manufacture and marketing of beauty products, from skincare bottles to the composition of makeup products itself, the industry is stained with pollution at every stage. 

 

The Manufacture 

First and foremost, the underlying principles of makeup products seem to be wasteful in nature, with consumers constantly buying and throwing out their makeup in response to new makeup trends or seasonal colours. Many products are designed to be ‘one-time use only’, meaning they cannot be refilled but instead one must buy a whole new product, incurring even more waste that could be avoided. Furthermore, the very chemicals within makeup are often unsuspectingly toxic or health damaging in nature, unsurprisingly given their confusing names that one cannot out rightly identify on the ingredients list. The Environmental Working Group reports that women are exposed to 168 chemicals from an average of 12 products a day, including hormone-altering chemicals like phthalates (Lupkin, 2015). Adding to the list is lead that is found in lipstick, mercury in mascara, and talc in blush that has been linked to cancer and respiratory issues (Martinko, 2020). 

Aside from consumer exposure to such chemicals, is the scary question of: What about the workers who collect these chemicals? Recently, a Refinery29 video went viral, garnering 10.1 million views on a documentary that exposed the exploitative practice of mica, a shimmery mineral that goes into almost every single makeup product. 

In the mica mines, child workers are exposed to fine dust that can cause infections, disease, and permanent lung damage, on top of the risk of mine collapse. The Kailash Satyarthi Children’s Foundation in India, a country that supplies 60% of total mica production, estimates that every month 10 to 20 children die in mica mines (Lebsack, 2019). The coverup of such exploitation is extreme to the point that UK brand Lush Cosmetics was denied independent verification and tracing of their mica supply by Indian suppliers and instead recommended armed accompaniment should they wish to visit the mines (Lebsack, 2019). In response, Lush Cosmetics switched fully to utilising a substitute biodegradable shimmer pigment in place of mica, highlighting that the pollutive and exploitative effects of the mica industry actually can be avoided, yet many beauty corporations choose not to.  

 

The Marketing

The beauty industry recently came under fire for its often over-extravagant and hence wasteful press release kits to influencers, that generate tonnes of plastic and packaging waste. Influencers worldwide, from America to Singapore began to refuse such media kits or wasteful packaging, urging the beauty industry to relook at its waste patterns. 

 

 

Labelled as ‘beauty pollution’, the industry creates 120 billion units of mostly non recyclable packaging annually (Brownsell, 2018), which of course equates to pollution from their production and disposal. New consumer awareness surrounding such practices and its environmental consequences means brands are slowly losing the “social license to use plastic packaging” which is driving a new era of green goals in the beauty industry (Borunda, 2019). Brands such as L’Oreal have declared “New Plastics Economy Goals” that aim to be 100% plastic free by 2025, 50% of which will be recyclable material (Borunda, 2019). On the consumer side, there are various Environmental watchdog resources that can aid us in our pollution free journey. The Environmental Working Group for instance, has a Skin Deep Cosmetics Database that catalogs over 70, 000 beauty and personal care products into hazard ratings (low, moderate and high) based on their ingredients (Wilson, 2017). For more information, click here. 

 

Author: Madeleine Shutler

 

References:

Brownsell, A. (2018, November 10). Why bold, bedazzled makeup is everywhere. Retrieved July 04, 2020, from https://i-d.vice.com/en_au/article/zmj7kj/why-bold-bedazzled-makeup-is-everywhere 

Lebsack, L. (2019, May 4). The Makeup Industry’s Darkest Secret Is Hiding In Your Makeup Bag. Retrieved July 04, 2020, from https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2019/05/229746/mica-in-makeup-mining-child-labor-india-controversy 

Lupkin, S. (2015, April 28). Women Put an Average of 168 Chemicals on Their Bodies Each Day, Consumer Group Says. Retrieved July 04, 2020, from https://abcnews.go.com/Health/women-put-average-168-chemicals-bodies-day-consumer/story?id=30615324

Martinko, K. (2020, May 12). 20 Toxic Ingredients to Avoid When Buying Body Care Products and Cosmetics. Retrieved July 04, 2020, from https://www.treehugger.com/toxic-ingredients-avoid-when-buying-body-care-products-and-cosmetics-4857867 

Maybelline. (n.d.). Maybelline Dream Urban Cover SPF50 Foundation 121ml (Various Shades). Retrieved July 04, 2020, from

https://www.lookfantastic.com.sg/maybelline-dream-urban-cover-spf50-foundation-121ml-various-shades/12097316.html?affil=thggpsad 

Niven-Phillips, L. (2019, March 24). The latest trend in skincare: Anti-pollution makeup sales soar. Retrieved July 04, 2020, from https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2019/mar/24/anti-pollution-skincare-beauty-products-sales-rise 

Wilson, J. (2017, December 07). Get Some Earth Day Beauty Goodness. Retrieved July 04, 2020, from https://www.huffpost.com/entry/organic-beauty-products-earth-day_n_5184712