Environmentalism

Articles Tagged with: Environmentalism

16 August, 2010

An open letter to the Prime Minister of Malaysia

By Cynthia Ong

Ed. The following is written by my friend and colleague, Cynthia. I endorse her views and recommend you read them because by chosing to mobilise around the issue of clean energy, Cynthia has shown how our shared values of environmental conservation, sustainable development and just government are being swept under the carpet in Malaysia.

Dear Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak,

I write to you as a deeply concerned and saddened citizen of Malaysia. For most of the 45 years of my life, I have been proud to be Malaysian. Recently, I have become heartbroken to be Malaysian.

I am profoundly grateful to write this with the support of both my local communities in Sabah, Malaysian Borneo and California, U.S.A., and a larger world community. That said, I take full ownership of and sole responsibility for the views articulated in this letter; I express them from my stand as a mother, an earth citizen and a leader.

I founded and lead a public charity and non profit organization both in Malaysia and in the U.S., to bridge between worlds and build partnerships for ecological conservation. I have been at the front lines of the founding and mobilization of Green SURF (Sabah Unite to RePower the Future), the civil society movement opposing the construction of the 300 megawatt coal-fired power plant in Lahad Datu, Sabah, on the edge of the Coral Triangle, one of three of the world’s most bio-diverse ecosystems. You know. You signed the 6-nation declaration between Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, Papua New Guinea, East Timor and Solomon Islands to collectively protect this 1.6 billion acres of ocean. You also know of course of your pledge at Copenhagen to reduce carbon emission intensity by up to 40% by 2020. You likely also know that the plant will displace fishing communities who have been there for a long time – irreparably contaminating their livelihoods forever. And if you listened, you would also know that they do not want the “development” that your government is imposing on them.

One of the priorities of Green SURF was to study clean energy alternatives to the coal-plant, and propose them to the government. We collectively invested tremendous time and resources to identify and commission the expertise of Professor Daniel Kammen at Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory of University of California, Berkeley to conduct the Clean Energy Options for Sabah report. We had no notion of the outcome of the study, and results showed that Sabah is in an exceptional position to shift towards clean energy due to the availability of natural resources. We are in fact in an opportune position to lead the nation and the region in clean energy – the kind of leadership the world so urgently needs now. I wonder if you know that Sabah is the last coal power-free frontier of Borneo. FYI, the 5 core NGOs in Green SURF are amongst the largest, oldest and most recognized conservation groups in Sabah and Malaysia – collectively responsible for most of the conservation work in the nation, with partnerships that span the world.

We have tried every avenue available to communicate to you the results of our findings and to engage in discussion about the future of energy for Sabah. After months of unsuccessful attempts to meet with you, I can only conclude that you do not want to meet with us. This confuses and disturbs me. Your words in public are about listening to the rakyat (people) and hearing their views. A sizeable portion of the rakyat of Sabah has been doing everything within their power to be heard by you. To no avail. We have given you the benefit of the doubt that word is not getting to you, and yet we have met with those around you who promised they would convey our message to you. Many months, memos, reports, letters, faxes, emails and phone calls later, and we have not received a single response from you or any member of your administration. We also did our best at state level government, and have huge support from within the government but ultimately the message is that this is untouchable because “ini Najib mau” (Najib wants this).

Sir, my most consistent experience of your administration is stone walls, arrogance and insincerity. I am shocked by the behavior of the leadership of my nation. I find it patronizing, archaic, oppressive, blatantly and self-righteously elitist and top-down. I do not experience your administration as democratic, transparent, open, accountable or responsible. There is a deep incongruence between what you are projecting externally and what we have experienced internally. I can only surmise that you intentionally run your administration in this manner. Otherwise, it would mean that your leadership is incompetent and ineffective.

I am angry, and I am not willing to accept systemic disempowerment of our people. I am writing this open letter as a last resort. Sabahans are speaking up because we are deeply troubled and scared about the fate of our ecological and cultural legacy, and what we will be able to hand down to our future generations. Please show true leadership and listen. You and your administration have much to do to regain a modicum of respect amongst many Sabahans. If 1Malaysia is more than a PR campaign and is truly intended “to provide a free and open forum to discuss the things that matter deeply to us as a Nation”, please walk your talk.

Yours sincerely, for the children,

Cynthia Clare Ong Gaik Suan
IC# 650423 12 5708

c.c. United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon
United Nations General Assembly
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
Human Rights Watch
Amnesty International
The Parliament of Malaysia
Suhakam – Human Rights Commission of Malaysia
Professor Daniel Kammen, Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, U.S.A.
FaceBook, Twitter, blogs and websites
Local, national and international mainstream and alternative media

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(passed by United Nations General Assembly, 1948)
Article 21.

* (1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
* (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
* (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Further Reading
Green SURF Website
Another view on mobilising around climate change

%RELATEDPOSTS%

25 May, 2010

Biodegradable Plastic?

By Ian Hall

“We only use biodegradable plastic”. This was a claim made by a resort hotel in support of their responsible tourism policy. Upon further investigation the claim was clarified to mean degradable plastic.

Some plastics marked as ‘degradable’ might not be as environmentally-friendly as consumers think. The implications go beyond greenwashing. In our rush to damn plastic bags and bottles, environmentalists may have compromised efforts to recycle.

Degradable plastic turns out to mean that the plastic will quickly break down into small pieces under influence of light and oxygen. This seems like a good idea given concern about the volume of plastic waste that ends up in landfill or in the sea.

The problem is that these small pieces are still not necessarily biodegradable and it is unclear how long they will persist in the environment and whether they are harmful. Sea turtles may not choke on a discarded degradable plastic bag but there is still a risk that plastic residues that they ingest will be toxic.

The alternative to plastic packaging is paper or reusable fabric bags. Hygiene concerns aside, life cycle analysis shows that it is too close to call which is more environmentally friendly. The debate about pollution by plastic bottles, bags and packaging has therefore reached the point where most are agreed that it is not the plastic itself which is the problem as much as how we dispose of it.

Plastic is recyclable so throwing it away not only causes pollution but wastes a valuable resource.

The real disaster of degradable plastic is that when it is mixed with other plastics during recycling, the end product will be worth less. This would make recycling of plastic less effective and is an unfortunate side effect of environmentalist’s ban-the-bag campaigns.

Surely a ban on degradable plastic would be more appropriate and the issue of non-degradable plastic tackled through recycling incentives and/or a switch to truly biodegradable or compostable plastic?

The latter may not be derived from petroleum at all and can instead be made from plant based products such as corn starch upon which bacteria are happy to chomp. Corn starch bags are being trialled by my colleagues at Borneo Rainforest Lodge and the sample I have been given has held up very well.

The moral of the story? People, like water, will take the path of least resistance. It’s easier to keep producing plastic packaging and to add a little extra to the mix than to change to an alternative product. It’s easier still to believe the greenwash.

Nuclear Powered Malaysia

By Ian Hall

Nuclear Power has been in the Malaysian news recently after the government gave the go ahead for a nuclear power plant to begin operating from 2021

Environmentalists and NIMBY’s are usually vocal in their opposition to such announcements and indeed the Malaysia Nature Society has been debating the issue for some time before the government announcement. As an environmentalist and a disciple of James Lovelock I felt the need to weigh in on the debate with a letter to the editor of Malaysian Naturalist magazine which was published last month

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

Sir,

I have read in Malaysian Naturalist recently arguments against nuclear power. This has prompted me to write a letter to the editor to come out of the closet as an environmentalist who is in favour of nuclear power.

I don’t believe that we can change our energy consumptive behaviour quickly enough to avoid climate change. Therefore we need an instant low carbon way to generate power. Nuclear power seems to be the only technology that we have available right here, right now, that can do the job.

Opponents will talk of alternatives; but wind, hydro, tidal and biomass all have their own environmental costs or are unproven, solar is promising but does not work at night, hydrogen is not so much a source of power as a good way to store it and clean coal does not exist. Only natural gas seems viable as our other option for a low carbon fuel.

The high cost of disposing of radioactive waste is often highlighted as a downside of nuclear power. In fact I see this as contributing to its credibility. Nuclear power generation is one of the few industries that is forced to pay the environmental clean up costs of its operation. Most other industries cut and run leaving others to deal with their mess.

Of course any debate about nuclear power eventually comes down to one key factor; we’re scared of it. My feeling is that although the dangers are real, they are over-exaggerated by paranoia. I liken this to the relative danger of air travel versus car travel. Many more people are killed by car travel but in our minds air travel is much more dangerous because each incident is more catastropic.

Then finally we come to the issue closest to my heart which is environmental conservation. For this point I refer you to an ongoing debate about the wildlife that apparently thrives in the exclusion zone around Chernobyl (the site of the world’s most catastropic nuclear accident). The science is still unclear as to exactly how much damage has been caused to wildlife at Chernobyl but analysis seems clear on one thing; that the benefits to wildlife of removing people from the zone, have far outweighed any harm from radiation.

In this I support James Lovelock (Author of the Gaia Theory) by saying, let’s dump our low level nuclear waste in the rainforest. It will cause far less environmental damage than logging or plantations and we can turn paranoia about nuclear power to the benefit of conservation by keeping people away from the area. We will also have responsibly generated low carbon energy to keep up with demand.

Sincerely

Ian Hall

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

Further reading:
Environmentalists For Nuclear Energy
The Mystery of Chernobyl

22 November, 2009

Logging Trucks by Night

One year after cessation of logging in Ulu Segama Malua, timber is still being trucked out of this area under cover of darkness.

Late in 2008 it was common to pass 30 or more fully laden logging trucks during the 2-3 hour journey to Danum Valley Field Centre or Borneo Rainforest Lodge.

I interpreted this glut as the last binge before the forests in this part of the Yayasan Sabah concession are converted to more sustainable use such as eco-tourism, scientific research or ecosystem services.

Now thankfully most tourism operators, researchers and responsible forest managers are spared the frustrating sight of their future income security disappearing overnight.

These are the majority who travel by day. By night it is different. On the evening of 16th November we passed 15 logging trucks on our way out from Borneo Rainforest Lodge. I was assured by my driver and companions that this is a common sight.

I am sure that the timber originates from legitimate logging contracts, possibly from further inside the concession than the Ulu Segama area? What attracted my attention was the lack of a reasonable explanation for why it has become necessary to move the logs at night.

%RELATEDPOSTS%

13 July, 2009

Biomimicry

At last I get around to reading Biomimicry and it has helped me to understand the balance between the natural and the man-made.

Browsing Mongabay the other day I came upon this article which discussed the conflict between environmentalists and the timber industry in Tasmania. The piece was structured around the views of those who see tasmanian forests as an exploitative resource, those that think it should remain untouched and a minority who think it could be both.

This got me wondering where I would place myself on this spectrum. Firmly towards the ‘untouched’ end I thought.

A few days later I was reading about polyculture agriculture in Janine Benyus’ book – Biomimicry. On the one hand is conventional agriculture that is not sustainable because it looses soil and requires unsustainable inputs. On the other is a sustainable ideal that won’t feed us. In between lies an agriculture that mimics a natural ecosystem and provides food.

I realised that forestry is agriculture and that if we tried to mimic a natural ecosystem we might see more bio-diverse plantations with lower fossil fuel imputs and less environmentally harmfull outputs.

I revised my position on the spectrum a little closer to the centre.

The impetus to read Biomimicry came from a lecture on the subject organised by the Malaysian Institute of Architects (PAM). At that lecture I heard Neil Thomas of Atelier 1 discussing how their projects mimic nature, Andrew Grant of Grant Associates showing us his fantastic supertrees set in an artificial landscape and finally the eclectic work of Meejin Yoon & Eric Howeler of MY Studio which included what they describe as super-natural landscapes.

At the end of the talk I asked the speakers whether they thought that this is the future for our planet [artificial landscapes and imitations of nature]?

The PAM Master of Ceremonies said yes, we have to use technology to get us out of the mess we’re in.

Andrew Grant said that he thought that in urban areas, yes this was the answer but that there was still space for true nature.

Meejin Yoon said yes but cautioned that we must remember that we can never do better than nature.

I could see in Andrew’s and Meejin’s answers the middle ground between an artificial fix (biomimetic or otherwise) to environmental problems and the alternative for a natural fix implicit in my question.

Biomimicry is an optimistic and inspirational book which I hope will not be misinterpreted to mean that natural systems can be replaced by the artificial.

The message of the book seems to be (I haven’t finished reading it yet) that we can use biomimicry to greatly improve the life-friendliness of the things we do. With this as our motivation and a humble respect for nature as our check, I can see the case for mimicking nature in the above examples of forestry, agriculture, building and many more.

If you see me championing the cause for forests and wild places remaining as wild and natural as possible, it’ll be because I see general consensus moving towards the other end of the spectrum.

%RELATEDPOSTS%

An excellent rant against geo-engineering and why we should use natural rather than man-made systems to restore the biosphere can be found here on Ecological Internet

12 3