[Note: This is NOT a letter to the Editor. This is ACTUALLY an article. Written by "a Research Fellow at the Lee Kuan Yew Centre for Innovative Cities, Singapore University of Technology and Design and an Assistant Professor of anthropology at the university. As us plebes would say, "oo tak cheh eh lang". And they write like this?]
Why waste management is such a knotty issue in Singapore
There are many considerations in how to implement a system for waste management that is convenient, fair, equitable, hygienic, and cost-effective. Reuters file photo
10 April, 2019
How cities deal with household trash, or ‘waste management’ in urban planning jargon, is not a sexy topic. One thing that can make it even less palatable to talk about?
Paying fees based on how much trash we generate – a hot-button topic that’s received some coverage in the media lately.
How cities deal with household trash, or ‘waste management’ in urban planning jargon, is not a sexy topic. One thing that can make it even less palatable to talk about?
Paying fees based on how much trash we generate – a hot-button topic that’s received some coverage in the media lately.
[I may be out of touch, but I haven't read anything recently about trash collection fees based on volume. This suggests this paper was started some time ago (when "pay as you throw" was current... over a year ago?)]
And yet, waste management is an essential part of our everyday lives. Imagine that you had a bag attached to you that carried all of the trash that you generated each day.
A disposable coffee cup, a plastic wrapper, an unfinished piece of toast, papers and receipts cleaned out from the bottom of your bag – and that’s before you even got on the MRT to go to work. What would that bag look like at the end of the day?
Would it make you think twice about the amount of packaging and waste that you produce?
If not, imagine multiplying that bag with the 5.6 million people who live in Singapore.
Over a year, a decade, and a century. And then, imagine the things we put in our bags getting bigger and heavier each year, reflecting the 25 per cent increase in Singapore’s domestic waste production, from 1.37 million tonnes in 2000 to 1.73 million tonnes in 2015.
It’s staggering. Almost every one is aware of Singapore’s land constraints. Land, like water, is a scarce and precious resource.
It is cited as a reason why Singapore does not have more agriculture, bicycle lanes, landed property. And yet, we rarely think about our role in minimising the land we need to allocate for our trash.
[And here is the first disconnect. Did the authors even try to find out how much land we allocate for our trash? And did they then decide, 'oh heck, that doesn't help our thesis at all!'?]
There are many considerations in how to implement a system for waste management that is convenient, fair, equitable, hygienic, and cost-effective.
It is such a complex, context-specific operation to take care of a nation’s trash, that almost every country does it a little bit differently.
There is no silver bullet, no one-size-fits-all solution.
However, we would like to propose three principles that should guide the range of options, keeping the ultimate goal in mind: To decrease the amount of trash that Singaporeans generate.
[Before we get to the three principles, let's note the intellectual sleigh of hand here. First they point out that SG has land constraints. Then assumes that this also extends to land used for trash. Presumably, landfills. Then jumps to 'how to decrease the amount of trash".
And yet, waste management is an essential part of our everyday lives. Imagine that you had a bag attached to you that carried all of the trash that you generated each day.
A disposable coffee cup, a plastic wrapper, an unfinished piece of toast, papers and receipts cleaned out from the bottom of your bag – and that’s before you even got on the MRT to go to work. What would that bag look like at the end of the day?
Would it make you think twice about the amount of packaging and waste that you produce?
If not, imagine multiplying that bag with the 5.6 million people who live in Singapore.
Over a year, a decade, and a century. And then, imagine the things we put in our bags getting bigger and heavier each year, reflecting the 25 per cent increase in Singapore’s domestic waste production, from 1.37 million tonnes in 2000 to 1.73 million tonnes in 2015.
It’s staggering. Almost every one is aware of Singapore’s land constraints. Land, like water, is a scarce and precious resource.
It is cited as a reason why Singapore does not have more agriculture, bicycle lanes, landed property. And yet, we rarely think about our role in minimising the land we need to allocate for our trash.
[And here is the first disconnect. Did the authors even try to find out how much land we allocate for our trash? And did they then decide, 'oh heck, that doesn't help our thesis at all!'?]
There are many considerations in how to implement a system for waste management that is convenient, fair, equitable, hygienic, and cost-effective.
It is such a complex, context-specific operation to take care of a nation’s trash, that almost every country does it a little bit differently.
There is no silver bullet, no one-size-fits-all solution.
However, we would like to propose three principles that should guide the range of options, keeping the ultimate goal in mind: To decrease the amount of trash that Singaporeans generate.
[Before we get to the three principles, let's note the intellectual sleigh of hand here. First they point out that SG has land constraints. Then assumes that this also extends to land used for trash. Presumably, landfills. Then jumps to 'how to decrease the amount of trash".
I do not disagree that we should reduce trash, reduce packaging, and be more mindful of how much trash we generate. But that is a UNIVERSAL problem. It is not just a SINGAPORE problem because we have LAND CONSTRAINTS. But good misdirection.]
First, design.
The design of any waste management system should recognise the people who use it and respond to their behaviours and motivations.
Just because something exists, does not mean it is effective.
The blue recycling bins in the housing estates are meant to increase household recycling – but we often see them placed in the car park, or on a raised grassy median, far away from most people’s flats and regular walking routes.
Does that mean that technically, recycling is possible in the estate? Yes.
But is it designed in such a way that spurs people to recycle? The domestic recycling rate of 21 per cent suggests otherwise.
Behaviour change can be stimulated through a variety of factors, including convenience, incentives, peer pressure, education, and of course, fees, fines and enforcement.
However, the extent to which they are effective depend greatly on thoughtful design.
First, design.
The design of any waste management system should recognise the people who use it and respond to their behaviours and motivations.
Just because something exists, does not mean it is effective.
The blue recycling bins in the housing estates are meant to increase household recycling – but we often see them placed in the car park, or on a raised grassy median, far away from most people’s flats and regular walking routes.
Does that mean that technically, recycling is possible in the estate? Yes.
But is it designed in such a way that spurs people to recycle? The domestic recycling rate of 21 per cent suggests otherwise.
Behaviour change can be stimulated through a variety of factors, including convenience, incentives, peer pressure, education, and of course, fees, fines and enforcement.
However, the extent to which they are effective depend greatly on thoughtful design.
[Ah recycling. The holy grail of nincompoops with delusions of environmental sainthood. See below. Also, nothing in this section on design actually talks about how bad the current "design" is, or how it can be improved. Instead there is a bald statement of fact (21% recycling rate) and a sly hint that this is low. Low compared to what? These writers are intellectually dishonest at worst or naively stupid at best.]
Second, passion.
There are many things we do that are inconvenient. Littering and jaywalking would be rampant if we did not have a set of beliefs and principles that guided our actions.
The reason that we adhere to these beliefs and principles is partially through social norms and coercion. But it is also through personal belief, feedback and positive reinforcement.
Thus, it is not only design – but also our attitudes towards waste management that are essential to consider.
We need to work towards a broader public consensus about the importance and value of minimising how much trash we create as individuals and as a society.
Not only that, we also need to believe that our individual actions matter. In our research on recycling in Singapore, we met a number of people who don’t recycle because they think the blue bins merely get emptied to the same place as the rest of the trash.
We need to show that reducing our trash is not merely a symbolic or tokenistic feel-good gesture, but a useful – even vital – action for our future.
[I love the imperial tone of these... intonements: We need to blah blah blah.]
Finally, participation.
Top-down policies only go so far, and some of the best ideas and innovations out there have come from the crowd.
We can engage with and learn from residents and community groups that are already doing meaningful work in this area.
Singapore Food Rescue have repurposed (literally) tonnes of still-edible food that was destined for the landfill, connecting them instead with soup kitchens, community refrigerators and others in need.
Zero Waste SG work with local communities and businesses on education and waste reduction strategies, such as publishing a guide of which F&B retailers are best at minimising single-use plastic.
Such groups are effective at communicating in everyday language, understanding our lived realities and on-the-ground conditions, and making waste management fun, meaningful and about people.
[Why yes, making waste management fun and meaningful is absolutely critical.]
We should stimulate an environment where creative local efforts that drive change from the bottom-up can thrive and multiply.
[How do the writers come up with such GEMS? Can I get an "AMEN"?]
The old saying goes: “One man’s trash is another man’s treasure.”
However, as an overwhelming number of environmental studies show, this maxim may increasingly no longer hold true.
Rather, today’s trash is more likely to become tomorrow’s problem.
It’s time for big and bold solutions, and while the conversation about fees and technology are important, we should not forget to consider the vital role of design, passion and participation in creating solutions that truly work.
[Good thing they tell us it is time for big and bold solutions. I was going to suggest a small and timid one.]
ABOUT THE AUTHORS:
Julienne Chen is a Research Fellow at the Lee Kuan Yew Centre for Innovative Cities, Singapore University of Technology and Design and Lyle Fearnley is an Assistant Professor of anthropology at the university.
------
[Then there is this actual letter to the press (Today Voices) about a month later:]
Second, passion.
There are many things we do that are inconvenient. Littering and jaywalking would be rampant if we did not have a set of beliefs and principles that guided our actions.
The reason that we adhere to these beliefs and principles is partially through social norms and coercion. But it is also through personal belief, feedback and positive reinforcement.
Thus, it is not only design – but also our attitudes towards waste management that are essential to consider.
We need to work towards a broader public consensus about the importance and value of minimising how much trash we create as individuals and as a society.
Not only that, we also need to believe that our individual actions matter. In our research on recycling in Singapore, we met a number of people who don’t recycle because they think the blue bins merely get emptied to the same place as the rest of the trash.
We need to show that reducing our trash is not merely a symbolic or tokenistic feel-good gesture, but a useful – even vital – action for our future.
[I love the imperial tone of these... intonements: We need to blah blah blah.]
Finally, participation.
Top-down policies only go so far, and some of the best ideas and innovations out there have come from the crowd.
We can engage with and learn from residents and community groups that are already doing meaningful work in this area.
Singapore Food Rescue have repurposed (literally) tonnes of still-edible food that was destined for the landfill, connecting them instead with soup kitchens, community refrigerators and others in need.
Zero Waste SG work with local communities and businesses on education and waste reduction strategies, such as publishing a guide of which F&B retailers are best at minimising single-use plastic.
Such groups are effective at communicating in everyday language, understanding our lived realities and on-the-ground conditions, and making waste management fun, meaningful and about people.
[Why yes, making waste management fun and meaningful is absolutely critical.
We should stimulate an environment where creative local efforts that drive change from the bottom-up can thrive and multiply.
[How do the writers come up with such GEMS? Can I get an "AMEN"?]
The old saying goes: “One man’s trash is another man’s treasure.”
However, as an overwhelming number of environmental studies show, this maxim may increasingly no longer hold true.
Rather, today’s trash is more likely to become tomorrow’s problem.
It’s time for big and bold solutions, and while the conversation about fees and technology are important, we should not forget to consider the vital role of design, passion and participation in creating solutions that truly work.
[Good thing they tell us it is time for big and bold solutions. I was going to suggest a small and timid one.]
ABOUT THE AUTHORS:
Julienne Chen is a Research Fellow at the Lee Kuan Yew Centre for Innovative Cities, Singapore University of Technology and Design and Lyle Fearnley is an Assistant Professor of anthropology at the university.
------
[Then there is this actual letter to the press (Today Voices) about a month later:]
Schools, Education Ministry can do more for the environment
By Ang Zyn Yee
15 May, 2019
It is heartening to see the attention that the Government is giving to tackling excessive waste production and raising awareness of proper recycling habits.
Designating 2019 as the Year Towards Zero Waste, the authorities are sending a strong message that combating climate change and environmental destruction is a key priority.
[I like it. The Year towards Zero waste. Just like this is also My Year towards a healthier weight.]
More can be done, however, especially in schools and educational institutions.
Schools are integral to shaping the character and outlook of our youth and there is no better place to begin instilling environmental awareness in our people.
Climate change is a pressing problem and how schools are run should reflect that urgency.
I have several suggestions for the Ministry of Education and schools on the larger role they can play in Singapore’s efforts to preserve our planet.
First, schools should use only paper certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). The FSC, a global non-profit organisation, supports sustainable forestry.
It is heartening to see the attention that the Government is giving to tackling excessive waste production and raising awareness of proper recycling habits.
Designating 2019 as the Year Towards Zero Waste, the authorities are sending a strong message that combating climate change and environmental destruction is a key priority.
[I like it. The Year towards Zero waste. Just like this is also My Year towards a healthier weight.]
More can be done, however, especially in schools and educational institutions.
Schools are integral to shaping the character and outlook of our youth and there is no better place to begin instilling environmental awareness in our people.
Climate change is a pressing problem and how schools are run should reflect that urgency.
I have several suggestions for the Ministry of Education and schools on the larger role they can play in Singapore’s efforts to preserve our planet.
First, schools should use only paper certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). The FSC, a global non-profit organisation, supports sustainable forestry.
Using FSC-certified paper ensures that schools use only paper produced in a manner that is environmentally and socially sustainable.
[Why sustainable paper instead of recycled paper? Why not move towards a "paperless classroom"? Which is closer to "Zero Waste" - Sustainable paper, recycled paper, or paperless?]
Second, there should be an assurance that the recyclables collected in schools are, well, recycled.
In many schools, recyclables are thrown away with general waste despite efforts by students to sort their trash into recycling bins.
I understand that this happens because recyclables are often contaminated. This makes them less suitable for recycling.
The recyclable waste generated in schools is also far too minute that disposing of them with general waste makes the process much easier.
These problems are not too big to handle, though. For instance, students should be taught and reminded of proper recycling habits to reduce the odds of contamination.
[Actually, the problem is too small to handle, as the writer has pointed out. But like a lot of recycling "saints", no effort is too small. Did I write "saints"? I meant "martyrs".]
Finally, greater effort is needed to reduce the use of disposables. Schools should phase out disposable straws and utensils in canteens.
Finally, greater effort is needed to reduce the use of disposables. Schools should phase out disposable straws and utensils in canteens.
[Right. Straws. Get rid of them and you save the world. Sure. See above comment about "no effort too small".]
At school events where food is served, students and staff should be reminded to bring their own containers and cutlery.
Bottled water should be provided only on request.
While these suggestions may be challenging to roll out, environmental action far outweighs concerns about convenience.
Schools nurture our next generation. Let us create an environment that allows our youth to learn the proper way of treating our planet.
At school events where food is served, students and staff should be reminded to bring their own containers and cutlery.
Bottled water should be provided only on request.
While these suggestions may be challenging to roll out, environmental action far outweighs concerns about convenience.
Schools nurture our next generation. Let us create an environment that allows our youth to learn the proper way of treating our planet.
[Triggering this comment on FB:
And WHERE in SG are recyclables recycled? Where is the plastic recycling plant in SG? Where is the bottle recycling plant/facility in SG? Where is the aluminium recycling plant in SG? Where are our paper recycling plants?There ARE efficient ways of sorting through plastic for recycling, as the video below shows. Note that these facilities are in Germany (or at least Europe), and the process is highly automated, non-exploitative (of cheap human labour), but takes up a lot of space to produce recycled plastic PET, PP and HDPE pellets.]
The simple answer is - SG has NO RECYCLING FACILITIES.
The best we have are materials sorting, packing and exporting facilities that EXPORT our so-called recyclables to poorer countries, where labour is cheap, life is cheap, health and safety standards are laughable, and the environment can be sacrificed just so that the poor people can also sacrifice their lives and health to recycle our waste. Oh sorry, I mean "recyclables".
What is truly worth recycling are those where there are active scavengers for the material - the cardboard aunties and uncles, and the can-collectors. Plastics incur too much costs (in carbon emission from transporting it, in human health and lives from sorting and processing it, in environmental pollution and degradation, and waste from cross contamination) to be worth recycling.
But we do it anyway. To make ourselves feel better. And if we feel smug enough, we can write to the press to excoriate the schools and education ministry for not doing enough futile acts of contrition to help us all FEEL a little better, instead of doing what is really effective.
[Singapore uses incinerators to reduce our waste, and use the energy produced from burning our waste to produce energy - "Waste-to-energy". This is similar to what Sweden is doing as the video below shows. However, the journalist is not convinced that it is the best option, and not sure that burning plastic (for energy) is recycling. Certainly it is not the usual understanding of "recycling" where the materials used to make a product is reused to make another product. Burning for energy is more like down cycling. It is irreversible, and the material is irrecoverable. As one critic points out in the video, it is destroying resources.
The journalist concedes that burning is one step up from burying trash in landfill, but that was a grudging concession from him.
For me, plastics are made from petroleum. If the fossil fuel had not been made into plastic, it would have be burned as fuel. This way they had a short diversion into another form. Then they are burned. For energy.]
[This next video brings us to the crux of the issue. MOST "recyclables" are "recycled" by being exported overseas - China was a destination for a lot of these "recyclables". And when China closed its doors, the trash moved to Malaysia, Philippines, and even Hong Kong. The problem when recycling is done overseas is that there is no control. How do you know the aluminium, plastic, and glass you carefully sorted out for recycling and which the agencies in SG exports are ACTUALLY recycled?
Also the additional carbon footprint of transporting all those recyclables to a foreign land. I don't think that helps.]
[Waste is a complicated and complex problem. I will not be so arrogant as to think I have a solution. Or that my solution is the right one. This is something we need to work out. And the solution needs to be something applicable to Singapore.]
No comments:
Post a Comment