Sunday, January 8, 2012

Managing Water Effectively: Lessons from Singapore


Although Canada holds 20 percent of the world’s fresh water, we posses only 7 percent of the world’s renewable fresh water. The perception that Canada has an abundance of fresh water has led to misuse and abuse as evidenced by Canada's reprehensible per capita water consumption of 343 litres per Canadian per day. Canada requires more stringent policy to ensure sustainable water use and consumption.

The Canadian government can learn from countries like Singapore- a country that has built robust and highly effective water management policies.

Singapore covers an area of about 700 km2- slightly larger than the city of Toronto. With a population of 4.4 million, Singapore has consistently ranked as one of the least corrupt countries in the world. While Singapore receives 2400mm of rain annually, it is still considered a water-scarce country because of the limited amount of land that can be used to collect rainfall.

In order to provide sufficient water for its 4.4 million residents, Singapore’s water management approach relies on a combination of four strategies: rainfall storage, desalination, water imports and advanced technology for recycling water. Because of its holistic approach, Singapore has been able to successfully balance water quality and quantity considerations in an equitable manner that achieves economic efficiency, promotes public and private sector cooperation, and reduces reliance on external sources.

Let’s take a look at Singapore’s four strategies in further detail:

1.       Rainfall Storage:
Since 86 percent of Singapore’s population lives in high-rise buildings, the city-state has relied indispensably on collecting rainfall for non-potable uses (mainly for toilets). The cost of collecting rainwater is $0.25 USD per cubic meter compared to the cost of collecting potable water which is $0.33 USD.

2.       Desalination:
In 2005, Singapore created its first desalination plant, SingSpring, with the capacity to produce 30 million gallons of water per day. The plant uses three stages to treat water. First, sea water goes through a treatment process whereby suspended particles are removed. Next, water undergoes reverse osmosis. Finally, the water is remineralized.

A second desalination plant with a capacity to produce 70 million gallons of water will be completed in 2013. Combined, these two plants will allow Singapore to meet 7.4 percent of its current water demand.

3.       Water Imports:
Singapore currently relies on water imports from Malaysia to satisfy 40 percent of its water demand.

4.       Recycling Wastewater:
In 1998, Singapore started experimenting with water reclamation—the process of cleaning wastewater to safely return it to the environment. The Singapore Public Utilities Board (PUB) built a prototype plant, The Bedok Water Reclamation Plant, in May 2000 and after two years of testing the plant received a clean bill of health. The water quality was so high that it even met the quality standards of the Environmental Protection Agency and the World Health Organization.  After the success of the Bedok Water Reclamation Plant, Singapore has begun to collect, treat, and reuse wastewater on a larger scale.

Public Policy
Singapore passed the Trade Effluent Regulation in 1976 to ensure all wastewater discharge undergoes extensive treatment. While many other countries have similar requirements, Singapore has strictly enforced and implemented its regulations. When waste from cattle farms became a major source of contamination, Singapore enacted the Cattle Act to restrict the rearing of cattle to certain areas.

By using an approach that collects water from four sources, Singapore has been able to curtail its reliance on external water supplies and institute an efficient, cost-effective, and equitable water management strategy. Singapore’s four tap strategy will allow it to achieve self-sufficiency by 2060 as highlighted below.
















By Trevor S.

Wednesday, November 30, 2011

Vertical Farming: A Viable Solution?

The United Nations predicts that the planet will have over 9.1 billion people by 2050. As the amount of arable land continues to decline, how will we be able to provide enough food for 9.1 billion people? Providing a sufficient amount of food for 9.1 billion people would require increasing current food production by 70 percent. Many are skeptical that we will be able to meet this vast target; however, this skepticism has not stopped scientists from coming up with alternative solutions.

One of the proposed solutions is called vertical farming. The idea of this approach is to grow agriculture on each floor of a building, all year-round in cities across the world.


The benefits of vertical farming are noteworthy: lower transportation costs, a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions associated with food transportation, and less food spoilage. The idea of growing food in cities seems logical due to higher population density.

The main challenge with vertical farming is the prodigious amount of artificial lighting (and energy) that is required. However, the energy required to power this artificial lighting can be obtained through the installation of solar panels on building rooftops. Solar energy prices have dropped dramatically over the past ten years, with prices being almost equal to coal generated electricity. 


What do you think of vertical farming? Is it a viable alternative, or should we simply accept that our earth is incapable of supporting 9.1 billion people?

Check out this video from The Economist for more details:

By Trevor S.

Friday, November 11, 2011

Climate-Change deniers have a point

It's been a while since I last posted, too busy with med school these days. But after reading this Naomi Klein article and realizing that this website - http://www.friendsofscience.org/ - is the second item that pops up when "critique of canada's position on global climate change" is googled, I can no longer keep silent.

I don't mean that I'm now going to bash the climate-change deniers. On the contrary, when I read what Naomi Klein wrote, and what "Friends of Science" says, I can't help but think that a few of the denier's denials actually have a point.

(Don't worry, I haven't turned to the Dark Side...just making a suggestion to help all environmentalists become more successful. Let me explain.)

True, environmentalists aren't "sacrificing humans to the gods like the Aztecs". But we all know there are some environmental groups out there who put the environment above all else, even above the needs of fellow humans (ie. greenpeace cutting down whole fields of crops).

In fact, I used to be like this myself back in first/second year undergrad, trying to enforce my own values and standards upon fellow students in getting them not to waste food in the Queen's University cafeterias.

But this attitude is dangerous.

It only weakens support for the environmentalist's worthy ideals, and ostracizes the environmentalist group from society at large.

The environmental movement needs to shift it's focus - from one of "environmentalism" to "humanity-ism".

As David Suzuki says, the world will survive no matter what the humans do. The real question is whether humanity will survive or not, both in the short and in the long term.

The survival of the human race for many, many generations on Earth should be goal of environmentalists. In order to do that, environmentalists need a much more balanced approach - emphasizing the social, economic, and environmental aspects of sustainability, instead of just "environmentalism".

People who truly care about the future of humanity on Earth should not be forcing less privileged members of our society to make the same degree of sacrifice they themselves are making. Until people have their basic needs met and are happy with their lives, it will be virtually impossible for them to care about the natural environment.

So - instead of solely advocating for the environment at all costs, people who care about the planet/human race should advocate for environmental friendliness along with social justice, economic equality, and the like.

This ideal triad of economic, social, and environmental sustainability is not new. But it is much more complicated than just "environmental activism" alone.

Nonetheless, until environmentalists embrace this more balanced perspective, they and their worthwhile ideals will always be vehemently opposed by a significant chunk of our society.

Monday, October 3, 2011

The Economics of Water

Global water consumption has tripled since 1950 leading to vast shortages across the world. It is estimated that 1.1 billion people worldwide do not have access to safe drinking water. Since North America has 21 percent of the world’s fresh water, most Canadians and Americans do not understand or appreciate the value of fresh water.  The average American consumes nearly 350 litres of water a day—twice the global average.

The key challenge is figuring out how to preserve our precious supply of water and eliminate excessive consumption.  As David Zetland—an influential water economist currently working at Wageningen University in the Netherlands—points out in his research, water prices must increase to bridge the current gap between supply and demand. Zetland discusses water policy at length on his website www.aguanomics.com but his solution is to implement a pricing scheme that will eliminate excess consumption.  Zetland proposes implementing a pricing scheme whereby households would receive the first 75 gallons of water for free; however, every additional 75 gallons would cost $5.60. This pricing system would ensure that everyone gets a basic allocation of cheap water while forcing excessive water users to pay more. This model follows the basic economic principle that as price increases demand decreases. Pricing is without a doubt the most effective method to reduce demand because it directly impacts the end user. Further, through incorporating Zetland’s model, municipalities would get additional revenue which could be invested in infrastructure improvements or educational initiatives. Municipalities could even use their increased revenue to provide subsidies to homeowners for switching to appliances with lower water consumption (i.e. low flush toilets, low-impact showerheads, more efficient dishwashers etc).

By Trevor S.

Thursday, September 22, 2011

Greens Gone Rotten

A self-proclaimed eco-company dedicated to environmental conservation, New Forests Company, is taking advantage of the carbon-credits system to make money while planting trees.

Sounds win-win? Think again.

The catch is that in order to plant the trees, the company has evicted thousands of people in Uganda from their homes, using force if necessary. It's so serious that Oxfam is now involved in stopping this eco-friendly New Forests Company.

Sad to think that two organizations that should have the same goals and ideals are now in opposition. Once again, we are reminded that being eco-friendly and economically-beneficial alone is not enough to be sustainable. We need to be socially-just as well.

Transit in Hong Kong

One of my favourite aspects of travelling throughout Asia was observing and using public transportation systems. After using public transportation in Japan, Thailand and India, I was curious to learn whether we can apply similar strategies in Canada. I blogged about transportation in Japan in the past, but I wanted to explore Hong Kong’s public transit system, known as the Mass Transit Railway (MTR). With over four million weekly users and the highest utilization globally, it’s fascinating that the MTR is an entirely private (and profitable) organization.  

What specifically grabbed my attention about the MTR is its approach of using property development as an additional channel of revenue. The MTR develops properties like shopping centres, large housing complexes and office buildings on top of stations. The benefits of this approach are twofold: first, the MTR gets immediate cash flow from rental fees, and second ridership rises due to increased economic activity around stations. For instance, businessmen working in towers located overtop MTR stations will choose to use the MTR over driving due to convenience and affordability. Interestingly, the MTR’s properties generate more profit than transit fares. In 2009, the MTR made a net profit of HK$7.3 billion; of this amount, HK$3.55 billion came from property and HK$2.12 billion came from transit fares.

Hanford Plaza Located Overtop a MTR Station
 
What do you think about the MTR’s approach of using property development as a revenue source? 

By Trevor S.

Wednesday, September 7, 2011

Eco-Packaging Solutions in Canada


I recently did some research on the various forms of eco-packaging to determine which option has the strongest environmental benefit; both in the manufacturing and disposal stage.

I looked at three options: compostable, PLA and recycled PET (RPET). I’ve provided a brief outline of the three options below.

Compostable packaging is the most commonly known eco packaging- largely because of the compostable SunChips bag.  In order to receive the compostable packaging claim, the pack must be able to break down within a specified period of time in an industrial facility. I was not able to determine the specified period of time, but Sunchips takes about 14 weeks to break down which is a good benchmark. However, the major downfall of compostable packaging is it requires an industrial facility to be broken down; you can’t throw the compostable pack in your backyard. Further, compostable packaging isn’t currently accepted by green bin programs in Canada. Therefore, products like Sunchips end up sitting in a landfill where they may not even biodegrade.  However, this may change as companies lobby municipalities to accept compostable packaging.

Sunchips Compostable Bag

PLA packaging is made from renewable resources. It’s is typically made from corn, but it can also be produced using other resources like sugarcane and switchgrass. PLA’s greatest strength is that it’s made from renewable resources. However, there are ethical implications. PLA packaging drives up the demand for corn which causes a significant increase in commodity prices. This detrimentally impacts developing nations who consume corn in their daily life.

Noble PLA Bottle

Last, but certainly not least is Recycled PET. PET is the most common form of packaging and is often found in bottles and jars.  Recycled PET is in my opinion, the best option as reuses plastic that would otherwise go to a landfill. Further, there is an established market for RPET since there is an abundance of PET plastic. Since both PLA and compostable packaging are made from renewable resources, the availability of supply is often a concern (if there is a drought or other natural disasters the price of packaging rises and you may not have enough supply). 

Innocent Smoothie Bottle made from RPET

What options do you think have the least impact on our environment? 

By Trevor S.