Week 9

In an opening video entitled Climate Change, Energy and Energy & Action from the World Wild Life Fund in Brazil, the tag line struck out the importance of energy conservation. It simply reads:

Conserve your planet. It’s the only one you’ve got.

We simply cannot afford to live our current living standards because our resources will definitely not last us indefinitely. The statistics are of shock value- 23 billion tonnes of CO₂ are produced annually from the 1 billion vehicles on the roads. In Singapore, almost every family owns a car. Some may say that with higher standards of living, it is vital to own a car. No doubt about that but let us consider the current problems we are facing: traffic congestion and carbon emissions. Do we really want to continue to sit still and allow the problems to deteriorate further? With new habits, we need to continually use new technologies and come up with new ideas to innovate and do our part in conserving the environment.

In an article which I came across a while ago, there was an issue of incandescent light bulbs vs fluorescent light bulbs. Our conventional incandescent light bulbs consume 9x more energy and lasts 10x lesser. However, this has invited some detractors stating that the new fluorescent light may contain certain elements that, when shone on the skin, lead to skin irritation or when exposed to prolong periods, lead to a strain on the eyes. As such, it has not been widely accepted yet. Personally, I’m a supporter of fluorescent light since the pros of using it clearly outweigh the cons. Furthermore, as a consumer, I have yet to experience a problem as grave as skin irritation. My verdict: use fluorescent, people!

“If everyone consumed as much energy as the average Singaporean and U.S. resident, the world’s oil reserves would be depleted in 9 years.”

Something as small as changing your house light bulbs can go a long way in helping the environment. We should be morally culpable and responsible in playing our part.

On a separate but not unrelated topic, there was the possibility of reaching the target of having a 100% renewable energy by 2050. A report from the European Union shows that it is on its way to surpass its goal of generating 20% of all energy from sustainable sources by 2020, with 15 member countries also going beyond national targets. In a video Desertec: Solar Power for Europe from Africa, large panels of metal sheets store solar energy after which the energy can then be converted to other forms of energy, namely electrical for our day-to-day usage. Singapore should learn definitely learn from this. Even though we do not have deserts, we can still use solar panels to capitalize on a source that is infinite- the sun. On a side note, there was the issue of energy loss during energy transfer from the solar panels to factories. This is definitely an area of improvement. If energy yield can be increased to almost full capacity, this will surely be a formidable and revolutionary change. I believe that the prospect of having Singapore reaching 50% renewable energy by the year 2050 isn’t too far-fetched at all. Given the advancement in technology- think of the methanol economy (imagine if CO₂ could be converted to CH₃OH)-  and the increased awareness and social responsibility, the target isn’t unattainable at all! 100% is a little unrealistic given the fact that there will always be laggards. As long as there are still resources available at their doorstep, it is very hard for them to change their mindset.

Some questions to consider would be:

1)      How should we use the resources?

2)      Why are we using it so wastefully?

3)      What do we really need it for?

As a reiteration of my previous stand, we cannot afford to continue living the current lifestyle.

Here’s a food for thought: Will mankind’s insatiable demands exhaust the planet’s finite resources, or will human ingenuity lead to more efficient use of existing raw materials and the discovery of new sources of supply?

I certainly hope that mankind will not face a burning platform scenario- where the negative impacts grow so grave that it smacks right at our face before we start to react. The damages then will probably be (to a certain extent) irreparable. I believe that the government can intervene to combat recalcitrant who are unwilling to act environmentally. Using the typical velvet glove and the iron fist analogy, rewards or incentives should be given to rewarding individuals who have played their part while strict penalties could be slammed on ignorant individuals.

An area of improvement would be an elaboration of disruptive technology (it was probably left out because this is a generic topic/concept). There was the issue of "technology mudslide hypothesis". “This is the simplistic idea that an established firm fails because it doesn't "keep up technologically" with other firms. In this hypothesis, firms are like climbers scrambling upward on crumbling footing, where it takes constant upward-climbing effort just to stay still, and any break from the effort (such as complacency born of profitability) causes a rapid downhill slide.” (quoted from Wikipedia)

Interesting jargon and graph!

I would give an overall rating of 9/10 as concepts were clearly discussed and videos are once again comprehensive. Daniel’s magic trick was pretty engaging too.

See ya next week!