Organic farming 'no better for the environment'

By Cahal Milmo (The Independent)
Monday, 19 February 2007

Organic food may be no better for the environment than conventional produce and in some cases is contributing more to global warming than intensive agriculture, according to a government report.

The first comprehensive study of the environmental impact of food production found there was "insufficient evidence" to say organic produce has fewer ecological side-effects than other farming methods.

The 200-page document will reignite the debate surrounding Britain's £1.6bn organic food industry which experienced a 30 per cent growth in sales last year.

David Miliband, the Environment Secretary, drew a furious response from growers last month when he suggested organic food was a "lifestyle choice" with no conclusive evidence it was nutritionally superior.

Sir David King, the Government's chief scientist, also told The Independent he agreed that organic food was no safer than chemically-treated food.

The report for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs found "many" organic products had lower ecological impacts than conventional methods using fertilisers and pesticides. But academics at the Manchester Business School (MBS), who conducted the study, said that was counterbalanced by other organic foods - such as milk, tomatoes and chicken - which are significantly less energy efficient and can be more polluting than intensively-farmed equivalents.

Ken Green, professor of environmental management at MBS, who co-wrote the report, said: "You cannot say that all organic food is better for the environment than all food grown conventionally. If you look carefully at the amount of energy required to produce these foods you get a complicated picture. In some cases, the carbon footprint for organics is larger."

The study did not take into account factors such as the increased biodiversity created by organic farming or the improved landscape.

The report said: "There is certainly insufficient evidence available to state that organic agriculture overall would have less of an environmental impact than conventional agriculture.

"In particular, organic agriculture poses its own environmental problems in the production of some foods, either in terms of nutrient release to water or in terms of climate change burdens."

Using data from previous studies, the researchers singled out milk as a particular example of the environmental challenges presented by organic farming. Organic milk requires 80 per cent more land and creates almost double the amount of substances that could lead to acidic soil and "eutrophication" - the pollution of water courses with excess nutrients.

The study found that producing organic milk, which has higher levels of nutrients and lower levels of pesticides, also generates more carbon dioxide than conventional methods - 1.23kg per litre compared to 1.06kg per litre. It concluded: "Organic milk production appears to require less energy input but much more land than conventional production. While eliminating pesticide use, it also gives rise to higher emissions of greenhouse gases and eutrophying substances."

Similar findings were recorded with organic chickens, where the longer growing time means it has a higher impact on all levels, including producing nearly double the amount of potentially polluting by-products and consuming 25 per cent more energy.

Vegetable production was also highlighted as a source of increased use of resources. Organic vine tomatoes require almost 10 times the amount of land needed for conventional tomatoes and nearly double the amount of energy.

Advocates of organic farming said its environmental benefits had long been established, not least by Mr Miliband who has written it is "better for biodiversity than intensive farming". The Soil Association said it recognised that in some areas, such as poultry and growing vegetables out of season, organic was less energy efficient.

But it said that was vastly outweighed by factors which the Defra study had not taken into consideration such as animal welfare, soil condition and water use.

The pitfalls

Tomatoes

* 122sq m of land is needed to produce a tonne of organic vine tomatoes. The figure for conventionally-grown loose tomatoes is 19sq m.

* Energy needed to grow organic tomatoes is 1.9 times that of conventional methods.

* Organic tomatoes grown in heated greenhouses in Britain generate one hundred times the amount of CO2 per kilogram produced by tomatoes in unheated greenhouses in southern Spain.

Milk

* Requires 80 per cent more land to produce per unit than conventional milk.

* Produces nearly 20 per cent more carbon dioxide and almost double the amount of other by-products that can lead to acidification of soil and pollution of water courses.

Chickens

* Organic birds require 25 per cent more energy to rear and grow than conventional methods.

* The amount of CO2 generated per bird is 6.7kg for organic compared to 4.6kg for conventional battery or barn hens.

* Eutrophication, the potential for nutrient-rich by-products to pollute water courses, is measured at 86 for organic compared to 49 for conventional.

* The depletion of natural resources is measured at 99 for organic birds compared to 29 for battery or barn hens.

Take shorter showers, eat less meat: Singapore’s mantra to fight slump

Bloomberg
17 Jan 2009

Until a few months ago, Amit Singh dreamed of buying a car. Now, with S$75,000 ($50,100) in the bank, the lawyer is holding back, saying he’ll continue to make the one-hour commute to work on the Singapore subway.

“In these bad times, the buzzword is save, not spend,” says Singh, 34. “It’s not the right economic climate to be lavish or to have a luxurious lifestyle.”

Singapore is asking its citizens, the world’s third- wealthiest adjusted for purchasing power, to be prudent as analysts predict the worst economic slump in the nation’s 43- year history. In speeches, pamphlets and ads, the government is advising people to switch to cheaper frozen meats, take shorter showers and skip the top-of-the-line mobile phone.

The island’s strategy contrasts with that of other countries such as Japan and Taiwan, which are trying to boost consumer spending to spur economic growth as exports falter. Singapore, whose 4.8 million population is one of Asia’s smallest, doesn’t have a big enough home market to make up for falling sales overseas, so officials “are not even going to try” to tell people to spend more, says Vishnu Varathan, an economist at Forecast Singapore Pte.

“There’s no way the domestic economy can make up for the slack in the external sector,” he says. The message “is to bear with pay cuts and live frugally.”

The government is preparing people for dwindling incomes as the nation’s fourth recession in a decade forces companies including lender DBS Group Holdings Ltd., manufacturer Stats Chippac Ltd. and state-owned investment company Temasek Holdings Pte. to fire workers or trim salaries.

Singapore last year unveiled more than S$5.4 billion in cash payouts, utility rebates and special funds, or S$1,700 for each of the nation’s 3.2 million citizens, to help the poor cope with rising food and energy prices.

Officials say people also need to help themselves during the economic crisis. If everyone depends on the government, “we’ll weaken ourselves as a society,” Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said on Jan. 11, according to the island’s main English newspaper, the Straits Times. “We’ll cultivate a sense of reliance.”

The World Bank predicts Singapore’s $161 billion economy will be East Asia’s worst performer this year. The government forecasts it may shrink as much as 2%, after expanding 1.5% in 2008 and 7.7% in 2007.

Kit Wei Zheng, an economist at Citigroup Inc. in Singapore, says the contraction might be as much as 2.8%—the most severe since Singapore gained independence in 1965.

The unemployment rate may more than double to 5% from 2.2% in September 2008, says Leong Wai Ho, a regional economist at Barclays Capital in Singapore. More than 30,000 jobs may be lost, he says, after about 400,000 new positions were created in the past two years.

That could boost the default rate on mortgages for government-built apartments, which house 84% of Singaporeans. The rate has risen to 8% from 5% in 2003.

Governments elsewhere in Asia are encouraging their more- sizeable populations to spend to counter the deepening global recession. Taiwan extended the New Year’s holiday an extra day and is scheduled to distribute NT$3,600 ($108) shopping vouchers to citizens on Jan. 18. Japanese Prime Minister Taro Aso has pledged to give households 2 trillion yen ($23 billion) in handouts.

That may not work for Singapore, where private consumption accounted for 38 percent of gross domestic product in 2006, compared with more than half in Australia, Hong Kong, South Korea and Japan, according to the World Bank.

Singapore’s leaders have traditionally preached restraint amid economic difficulties. In 2001, when the economy contracted 2.2%, the government refused to cap electricity prices and instead gave utility rebates to help the poor and encourage people to “save and not over-consume,” then-Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong said in an August 2001 speech.

The government’s latest campaign began last year when prices of food essentials including rice and cooking oil surged. As inflation soared to a 26-year high of 7.5%, Prime Minister Lee urged people to switch to frozen meats and in-house brands of supermarket products, which are typically cheaper.

Survey shows Singaporeans stepping back from personal luxuries

By Zhang Tingjun, Channel NewsAsia
09 January 2009

SINGAPORE: A survey by OCBC Bank has shown that Singaporeans are starting to step back from personal luxuries and ambitions.

Instead, they are now more concerned about the basics of home, relationship and family.

The survey of 400 Singaporeans aged between 18 and 64 was conducted in the fourth quarter of last year.

It found that travel has dropped from Singaporeans' top priority last year to sixth position now.

Four in 10 respondents said they would cut down on spending.

According to the survey, there are clear indications that luxuries and non-appreciating assets have now taken a back seat.

- CNA/ir

House brands a hit

Supermarkets report jump in sales as higher-income shoppers switch brands
Jan 20, 2009
By Jessica Lim (Straits Times)
HOUSE brands are flying off the shelves at record speed as the recession bites deep, and even better-off households are increasingly turning to them.

Though the most popular items include staples and necessities such as rice, bread, cooking oil and toilet paper, supermarkets are catering to increasing demand by packaging everything from wine to olive oil under their brand names.

The Straits Times' checks with major supermarkets here found that sales of house-brand items such as rice had as much as trebled in the June-December period last year, compared to the same time in 2007. Overall, they said, sales of house-brand goods rose 50 per cent during the same period.

And with the economic outlook for the next few months - at least - looking increasingly gloomy, they say such items will only grow in popularity.

The supermarkets said the bulk of the increase in sales is due to demand from higher-income shoppers.

A Sheng Siong spokesman said that marketing surveys and feedback have shown that 'higher-income levels are more receptive towards house brands'.

Cold Storage said it has also observed a change in shoppers' behaviour.

The supermarkets think the shift is due to the 'improved perception and acceptance of house brands', a wider range of products, and improved quality.

The results of a Nielsen survey of 1,000 households also pointed to a similar change in habits.

It showed that of the 280 households with a combined income of at least $6,000 a month, 71 reported buying house brands in the June-November period, compared with 60 for the preceding six months - an increase of about 19 per cent.

This group registered the largest jump in house-brand purchases in the survey period.

A retail management lecturer at Ngee Ann Polytechnic, Ms Emiline Lee, said: 'In the past, those from the higher-income strata would not even look at house-brand products. But now, they are willing to switch. They realise they can save money, and that house brands are of higher quality as well.'

Buying such products can lead to big savings, she explained.

Going the generic route with staples such as rice, oil and toilet paper alone can shave as much as 20 per cent off a typical family's grocery bill.

On average, house-brand items are 15 per cent cheaper, but the difference can be much, much more. Ten rolls of FairPrice's brand of bathroom tissue, for example, costs $3.82. The price of 10 rolls of Kleenex is almost double that, at $7.50.

Consumers - both the less well-off as well as middle-income - who spoke to The Straits Times said they now actively seek out house brands.

'For me, it does not make a difference. Some items you use a lot very quickly so you don't need luxury versions,' said Ms Leena Sumukhan, 33, a working mother of two whose monthly household income is $8,500. Switching to house brands for items such as bread and pasta, she said, saves her about $30 every fortnight.

For housewife P.H. Ho, 33, saving money comes first.

The mother of two, whose husband takes home $9,000 a month, turned to generic washing powder and toilet paper last year. 'The priority now is to save money,' she said.

Meanwhile, because of surging popularity, supermarket chains are adding more products to their house-brand range.

FairPrice has plans to extend its range of housebrand products from the current 2,000 to 3,000 by 2012, and Cold Storage is going to introduce 20 per cent more products to its current 1,600 product range this year.

Sheng Siong, which now has about 20 house-brand items, will extend its range to include oil, frozen food and condiments.

limjess@sph.com.sg

Additional reporting by Cheryl Ong

Survey shows more high-income households turning to house brands
By Cheryl Frois, Channel NewsAsia
19 January 2009 2108 hrs

SINGAPORE : Amid the deepening recession, supermarket house brands or private labels are growing in popularity, with high-income households making the biggest switch among all income groups.

Such households, with a combined monthly income of over S$6,000, now make up over 28 per cent of all house brand buyers.

Together with middle-class households - which have a combined income of over S$4,000 - they account for 49 per cent of all house brand consumers.

A market survey by The Nielsen Company shows that staples such as rice, bread and cooking oil, and paper products like toilet rolls and facial tissue, are the most popular items.

Described as a never-before-seen phenomenon, the survey found that the penetration of house brand products now stands at 91 per cent, with over nine in 10 households having bought at least one of these items in the six months ending in November last year.

Nielsen also said overall spending and purchasing frequency of house brands also grew in the same period. - CNA/ms

SPEND MORE, BUSH TELLS CHINA CONSUMERS

6 September 2007 (TODAY)

SYDNEY - United States President George W Bush yesterday urged China's
consumers to spend more to help close a yawning trade gap with the US, as
he prepared to meet his Chinese counterpart Hu Jintao today.

While trade will likely top the agenda at the talks, the leaders are also
expected to include prickly issues such as exchange rates and reported
Chinese cyber-attacks on the Pentagon, reflecting a relationship Bush
termed "complex".

"We certainly hope that China changes from a saving society to a consuming
society," Mr Bush said, ahead of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation
(Apec) forum.

"Right now, because of the lack of a (social) safety net, many Chinese
save for what we call a rainy day," Mr Bush said. "What we want is the
government to provide more of a safety net so they start buying more US
and Australian products."

Most American criticism of the surplus is focused on the value of China's
currency - said to be kept artificially low - but Mr Bush focused on
China's high savings rates ahead of his meeting with Mr Hu.

China's enormous trade surplus with the US is a regular bone of contention
in bilateral relations, with widespread American claims that jobs are
being lost to the massive Chinese exporting machine.

The gap with China, which has the lion's share of imports into the US,
expanded to a record US$21.2 billion ($32.3 billion) in June from US$20.02
billion in May, according to US official data. - AFP

The foam on the shore is really styrofoam

It tops list of junk washing up on coasts here. What's worse, it fragments badly and poses threat to marine life

By Shobana Kesava
Sep 16, 2007
The straits times

UNLIKE anywhere else in the world where cigarettes make up the bulk of junk collected on beaches, in Singapore it is styrofoam.

This material has been picked up in increasing amounts over the last five years, said Mr N. Sivasothi, coordinator of the International Coastal Cleanup Singapore (ICCS).

The ICCS, an annual clean-up event, is the only concerted effort by volunteers here to analyse the kinds of trash that land up on local shores.

'Styrofoam is potentially much more damaging because it can fragment badly, whereas cigarette butts stay whole,' said Mr Sivasothi.

'The overwhelming problem we have is of plastic consumer items in the sea. As they break down, the chemicals that leach from them can be toxic.' Plastics are also a threat to birds, which are known to mistake them for food.

Preliminary data from this weekend's coastal clean-up saw styrofoam caking up the coastlines of both mangrove swamps and beaches.

While the most litter - all 29,801 pieces of it - was collected along the East Coast, Pulau Ubin Beach proved the dirtiest when factors such as the density of the litter collected by volunteers were factored in.

Mr Sivasothi attributed the problem at Ubin in part to dumping.

'There is a lot of heavy litter like oil drums and furniture parts. Offshore farms may have contributed to this load.'

The litter at the East Coast beaches was linked to heavy usage.

'Where there is recreation, there is rubbish,' he said.

skesava@sph.com.sg

Vegetables Contaminated

Samples in Selangor market tested positive, but S'pore imports safe

Tiffany Tan
tiffany@mediacorp.com.sg
Aug 28 2007 (TODAY)

Almost one-third of the vegetables from a Selangor wholesale market
contained pesticide residues exceeding the levels allowed by law.

This was the finding of a five-year study conducted by Malaysia's
Institute for Medical Research (IMR) and Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia,
the New Straits Times reported.

The study found that all celery and curry leaf samples taken from the
wholesale market in Selayang tested positive for three groups of
cancer-causing pesticides, the Malaysian daily reported.

At the same time, at least 40 per cent of the spinach, kangkung, round
cabbage and Chinese mustard were contaminated. Of the vegetables that
tested positive for residues, almost one-third exceeded the maximum level
allowed under Malaysian law.

IMR researcher Dr Nurul Izzah Ahmad described the findings as "alarming".
Despite this, he said the potential health risk of consuming these
pesticide residues is "low".

"We did not wash the vegetables prior to testing them, so that we could
get the maximum level of pesticide residue," he said.

"But before eating them, most people would have washed, soaked and cooked
the vegetables, greatly reducing the amount of residues consumed."

When asked if any of the vegetables in Singapore comes from the Selayang
market, Singapore's Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA) said that it
did not matter which wholesale market the vegetables come from, as long as
the AVA could trace it to the source farms.

"All consignments of vegetables are tagged and the AVA can trace its
source," AVA assistant director for corporate communications Goh Shih
Yong told Today. The AVA has an inspection system to ensure that imported
vegetables are safe and wholesome for consumption, he said. "If food is
not safe, it cannot be sold."

Singapore imported from Malaysia, 178,970 tonnes of vegetables, or 48 per
cent of total imports, last year. That year, 41.8 tonnes of total imports
were destroyed due to excessive levels of pesticides.

Authorities confirm vegetables in Singapore safe to eat

By Valarie Tan, Channel NewsAsia
27 August 2007 2325 hrs

SINGAPORE: Vegetables available in Singapore are not affected by the cancerous pesticide found on vegetables in Selangor.

The Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority says imported vegetables are put through a comprehensive checking system to make sure they are safe to eat.

Singapore imports 48 per cent of its vegetables from Malaysia.

Through a five-year study, researchers in Malaysia have recently found that some popular greens are highly contaminated with cancer-causing pesticide residues.

All celery and curry leaf samples taken from a wholesale market in Selayang were tested positive for three groups of pesticides.

At least 40 per cent of spinach, kangkong, round cabbage and Chinese mustard samples were tainted.

Scientists think the crops were harvested too early, before the pesticides could disintegrate.

They say potential health risks are small, as consumers will wash and cook the vegetables before eating. - CNA/ac

Singapore Shipping Firm Fined $15m For Alaska Spill

Ansley Ng
ansley@mediacorp.com.sg
Aug 24 2007 (TODAY)

AN American court has ordered a Singapore shipping firm to pay a
US$10-million ($15.2-million) penalty for an oil spill, after one of its
ships ran aground near an Alaskan wildlife haven, killing thousands of
migratory birds and sparking a US$100-million cleanup.

The Malaysian-flagged tanker Selendang Ayu, owned by IMC Shipping, ran
aground and sank near Unalaska Island, off the south-western coast of
Alaska on Dec 8, 2004.

IMC Shipping is the shipping arm of Singapore-based IMC Group, which also
has business in property and natural resources development.

IMC spokesman James Lawrence told Today that the company paid the US$100
million for the cleanup, which went on for "more than two summers". It was
completed in June last year with the help of several companies and
government agencies, as well as the community.

On Wednesday, the United States Justice Department said that the company,
one of the world's largest privately held shipping groups, would pay the
US$10 million criminal fine, of which US$3 million would be for community
service in the polluted area, while US$1 million would be used to help the
wildlife haven.

The company pleaded guilty to two charges under the Refuse Act and one
under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

The fine was the result of a plea agreement with the Justice Department.
IMC still faces a civil lawsuit by the state of Alaska and the US federal
government.

"IMC has worked closely and fully cooperated with the relevant
authorities, including the US National Trans-portation Safety Board,
during their investigations," Mr Lawrence said.

The Selendang Ayu was en route from Seattle, US, to the Chinese port city
of Xiamen, transiting the Bering Sea when its engine failed.

After drifting for three days, it ran aground under severe weather and
sank near Unalaska Island.

Thousands of metric tonnes of soybeans and 1.3 million litres of bunker
oil spilled into the sea. Also, six of the 26-member ship crew were killed
when a US Coast Guard helicopter crashed during a rescue attempt. More
than 1,600 birds and six sea otters were found dead after the spill.

Floods: India, Nepal Trade Blame

Aug 7 2007 (TODAY)

Neighbours say each others' dams are responsible

KATHMANDU - India and Nepal blamed each other yesterday for some of the
worst flooding in South Asia in decades, which has affected 25 million
people and left rescuers scrambling to help victims.

Officials in Bihar, the Indian state worst affected by the inundation,
said neighbouring Nepal had failed to build dams to control water surging
down from the Himalayas.

But Nepal hit back immediately, claiming that Indian dams were to blame
for the flooding in Nepal.

"We can't do anything about the amount of water coming from Nepal," said
Ms Purna Kumari Subedi, Member of Parliament for Nepal's Banke district,
which borders Bihar.

"The same thing happened last year. Because of the dam constructed at
Laxmanpur on the Indian side, a lot more land on the Nepali side was
extremely flooded, affecting thousands of people," said Ms Subedi.

Nepal's foreign ministry said India could have helped to alleviate the
flooding upstream in the Himalayan kingdom. "Some of the Terai plains
areas bordering India were flooded because dams on the Indian side were
kept closed," said Mr Arjun Bahadur Thapa, Nepal's foreign ministry
spokesman.

In Nepal, at least 91 people have died in landslides and floods since the
beginning of June, officials said. Some 270,000 people have also been
affected, mostly in the southern plains bordering Bihar.

Over in Bihar, the flooding has affected 11.5 million people, while more
than 90 people have died in the last two weeks. The state's disaster
management chief, Mr Manoj Srivastava, said more than 6,000 villages were
submerged, but added that the waters appeared to be receding.

Meanwhile, Bihar authorities have sought federal government intervention
to tackle the issue with Nepal, claiming excessive water flow had engulfed
hundreds of villages in the Indian state that in the past had been
unaffected by flooding.

"We have written to the Prime Minister to take up the issue with the
Nepalese authorities," said Bihar's chief minister, Mr Nitish Kumar.

"Floods are an annual feature because all rivers originating in the upper
regions of the Himalayan kingdom send massive amounts of water, especially
into northern regions of the state," Mr Kumar told reporters. - AFP

Walking to the shops ‘damages planet more than going by car’

From The Times
August 4, 2007
By Dominic Kennedy

Walking does more than driving to cause global warming, a leading environmentalist has calculated.

Food production is now so energy-intensive that more carbon is emitted providing a person with enough calories to walk to the shops than a car would emit over the same distance. The climate could benefit if people avoided exercise, ate less and became couch potatoes. Provided, of course, they remembered to switch off the TV rather than leaving it on standby.

The sums were done by Chris Goodall, campaigning author of How to Live a Low-Carbon Life, based on the greenhouse gases created by intensive beef production. “Driving a typical UK car for 3 miles [4.8km] adds about 0.9 kg [2lb] of CO2 to the atmosphere,” he said, a calculation based on the Government’s official fuel emission figures. “If you walked instead, it would use about 180 calories. You’d need about 100g of beef to replace those calories, resulting in 3.6kg of emissions, or four times as much as driving.

“The troubling fact is that taking a lot of exercise and then eating a bit more food is not good for the global atmosphere. Eating less and driving to save energy would be better.”

Mr Goodall, Green Party parliamentary candidate for Oxford West & Abingdon, is the latest serious thinker to turn popular myths about the environment on their head.

Catching a diesel train is now twice as polluting as travelling by car for an average family, the Rail Safety and Standards Board admitted recently. Paper bags are worse for the environment than plastic because of the extra energy needed to manufacture and transport them, the Government says.

Fresh research published in New Scientistlast month suggested that 1kg of meat cost the Earth 36kg in global warming gases. The figure was based on Japanese methods of industrial beef production but Mr Goodall says that farming techniques are similar throughout the West.

What if, instead of beef, the walker drank a glass of milk? The average person would need to drink 420ml – three quarters of a pint – to recover the calories used in the walk. Modern dairy farming emits the equivalent of 1.2kg of CO2 to produce the milk, still more pollution than the car journey.

Cattle farming is notorious for its perceived damage to the environment, based on what scientists politely call “methane production” from cows. The gas, released during the digestive process, is 21 times more harmful than CO2 . Organic beef is the most damaging because organic cattle emit more methane.

Michael O’Leary, boss of the budget airline Ryanair, has been widely derided after he was reported to have said that global warming could be solved by massacring the world’s cattle. “The way he is running around telling people they should shoot cows,” Lawrence Hunt, head of Silverjet, another budget airline, told the Commons Environmental Audit Committee. “I do not think you can really have debates with somebody with that mentality.”

But according to Mr Goodall, Mr O’Leary may have a point. “Food is more important [to Britain’s greenhouse emissions] than aircraft but there is no publicity,” he said. “Associated British Foods isn’t being questioned by MPs about energy.

“We need to become accustomed to the idea that our food production systems are equally damaging. As the man from Ryanair says, cows generate more emissions than aircraft. Unfortunately, perhaps, he is right. Of course, this doesn’t mean we should always choose to use air or car travel instead of walking. It means we need urgently to work out how to reduce the greenhouse gas intensity of our foodstuffs.”

Simply cutting out beef, or even meat, however, would be too modest a change. The food industry is estimated to be responsible for a sixth of an individual’s carbon emissions, and Britain may be the worst culprit.

“This is not just about flying your beans from Kenya in the winter,” Mr Goodall said. “The whole system is stuffed with energy and nitrous oxide emissions. The UK is probably the worst country in the world for this.

“We have industrialised our food production. We use an enormous amount of processed food, like ready meals, compared to most countries. Three quarters of supermarkets’ energy is to refrigerate and freeze food prepared elsewhere.

A chilled ready meal is a perfect example of where the energy is wasted. You make the meal, then use an enormous amount of energy to chill it and keep it chilled through warehousing and storage.”

The ideal diet would consist of cereals and pulses. “This is a route which virtually nobody, apart from a vegan, is going to follow,” Mr Goodall said. But there are other ways to reduce the carbon footprint. “Don’t buy anything from the supermarket,” Mr Goodall said, “or anything that’s travelled too far.” dkennedy@thetimes.co.uk

Shattering the great green myths

— Traditional nappies are as bad as disposables, a study by the Environment Agency found. While throwaway nappies make up 0.1 per cent of landfill waste, the cloth variety are a waste of energy, clean water and detergent

— Paper bags cause more global warming than plastic. They need much more space to store so require extra energy to transport them from manufacturers to shops

— Diesel trains in rural Britain are more polluting than 4x4 vehicles. Douglas Alexander, when Transport Secretary, said: “If ten or fewer people travel in a Sprinter [train], it would be less environmentally damaging to give them each a Land Rover Freelander and tell them to drive”

— Burning wood for fuel is better for the environment than recycling it, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs discovered

— Organic dairy cows are worse for the climate. They produce less milk so their methane emissions per litre are higher

— Someone who installs a “green” lightbulb undoes a year’s worth of energy-saving by buying two bags of imported veg, as so much carbon is wasted flying the food to Britain

— Trees, regarded as shields against global warming because they absorb carbon, were found by German scientists to be major producers of methane, a much more harmful greenhouse gas

Sources: Defra; How to Live a Low-Carbon Life, by Chris Goodall; Absorbent Hygiene Products Manufacturers Association; The Times; BBC

Luxurious, But Eco-friendly

Energy Smart hotels save energy without stinting on quality

Lin Yanqin
yanqin@mediacorp.com.sg
Aug 4 2007 (TODAY)

KEEPING guests pampered and comfortable comes at a high price - hotels are
among the biggest energy guzzlers in Singapore, accounting for nearly 2
per cent of the total greenhouse gas emissions.

And with 2,000 rooms to be added over the next couple of years and another
4,300 by 2010 - courtesy of the integrated resorts - they are now in the
green movement's spotlight.

The National Environment Agency (NEA) has added hotels to the Energy Smart
Building labelling scheme, a two-year-old programme that recognises
establishments for being energy efficient.

"I would say the next eight months is a critical time," said Dr Lee Siew
Eang from the National University of Singapore (NUS), who headed the team
that developed the benchmarks for the scheme.

"When all the design work (for the hotels) is going on, we can use this
opportunity to put energy efficiency at the forefront of (the developers')
minds."

To qualify to be Energy Smart, hotels need to engage an accredited energy
service company to conduct an audit on their energy efficiency.

As an incentive, the NEA will fund 50 per cent of the cost of the audit,
up to a maximum of $200,000.

If the audit shows that the hotel ranks among the top 25 per cent in terms
of energy efficiency, it will be awarded the label.

The trouble, Dr Lee said, is that many hotels in Singapore are ignorant of
how energy inefficient they are.

"And some of the posh hotels told us that energy saving was not their
priority because they were luxury hotels," he said.

"They think that saving energy means compromising on quality."

But four hotels that were awarded the inaugural Energy Smart Hotel label
on Friday prove this is not necessarily the case.

The Regent Singapore, for instance, shaves about $20,000 from its monthly
utilities bill thanks to clever tweaking of current operations.

The hotel now uses a heat recovery system - using the heat emitted when
water is cooled - for the hotel's heating needs.

The system cost the hotel $500,000 to install, but it is confident that it
will recoup the amount within 18 months.

"That's what this whole scheme is about - improving energy efficiency
without compromising the guests' stay," said Ms Ann Verbeek, public
relations director of The Regent.

"We are doing all this without sacrificing luxury."

The other three hotels - InterContinental Singapore, Shangri-La Hotel, and
Changi Village Hotel - have similar heat recovery systems, as well as
energy efficient lighting systems to reduce electricity usage on lighting.

Energy Smart Office labels were also awarded to five other commercial
buildings on Friday, along with a special award for the National Library
Building.

This brings the total number of buildings under the labelling scheme to 13
office buildings, four hotels, and one library.

"There are real savings which contribute to the bottom line and the
systems are a business asset," said Dr Lee, who also heads NUS Energy
Sustainability Unit.

"The challenge is to convince developers that energy efficiency is not
just a running cost, but can become a capital gain."

Plans are in the pipeline to extend the scheme to other types of buildings
including shopping centres, hospitals and schools.

Saving Gaia Forum aims to raise environmental issues

By Dominique Loh, Channel NewsAsia
26 July 2007

SINGAPORE: The planet's environmental troubles have taken the spotlight in the media in recent weeks and MediaCorp's Channel NewsAsia is putting the issues in perspective with a new series called "Saving Gaia".

Besides airing the educational series, MediaCorp has also gone one step further by organising the Saving Gaia Breakfast Forum at the Shangri-la Hotel on Thursday to engage the business community in a meaningful dialogue on the benefits of going green.

In sharing the purpose of this eco-initiative, Woon Tai Ho, Managing Director of MediaCorp News, said: "This breakfast meeting is to focus on Gaia's biggest dilemma and that's business. We want to ask what it means to save Gaia for your company – from big decisions to personal ones... how do they hit the bottom-line? How do you turn every dollar green?

"The ideas that came out through the media were very good. We're going to use a lot of the ideas that were discussed and try to incorporate them into our programmes."

Due to rapid growth and consumerism, Singaporeans have, at one point, thrown away some 14,000 tonnes of garbage daily.

The National Environment Agency (NEA) said only half of the waste gets recycled and serious environmental problems such as carbon dioxide emissions remain.

Chang Yeng Cheong, Deputy General Manager, VivoCity, said: "VivoCity, being the largest retail and lifestyle destination, has more than 3 million visitors a month, so the challenge has always been to give everyone a cool shopping environment. But we only switch on the air conditioning 45 minutes before the official opening hours."

NEA said it has made some progress with companies that are willing to try its energy audit scheme.

Lee Yuen Hee, CEO, National Environment Agency, said: "When we introduced the scheme, there were a lot of hesitation by companies on the costs they would have to incur by implementing these energy efficiency measures. But once they have completed the study, they realised that the energy savings they can achieve are very significant. Companies under the scheme have achieved annual savings of about S$15 million."

Through the forum, it is hoped that the message of convincing companies to be earth-friendly would come across loud and clear.

Howard Shaw, Executive Director, Singapore Environment Council, said: "Going green does not have to be a big investment, it does not have to be a great inconvenience to management. If the right steps are adopted from the start, the company will see returns eventually."

Experts say a company's green efforts may have to come from the top management, but in the long run, educating the young may be the key in changing old habits from an older generation.


- CNA/so

Chicken price war between supermarts hurting smaller stallholders

By Lynda Hong, Channel NewsAsia
26 July 2007

SINGAPORE: Major supermarkets have been slashing prices for chicken since February, with the price war heating up in the past one to two months.

Consumers are naturally not complaining, but the huge reduction in prices has hurt stallholders at wet markets.

Supermarkets are selling whole chickens for S$2.50 – a price that was previously unheard of, said the Poultry Merchants Association of Singapore.

With such rock-bottom prices, consumers are ignoring the stalls at the wet markets, where a whole chicken, weighing 1 to 1.3 kg, is going for about S$4.

Chen Kim Soon, a chicken seller at a wet market, said: "Currently, our business has decreased by about 10 to 20 percent. If the business gets worse and we suffer losses, I may consider giving up my stall."

Supermarkets in Singapore have a 40 percent market share when it comes to chickens.

And these big players were said to have pressured slaughter houses to sell a whole chicken, weighing 1 to 1.3 kg, at S$2.30 – way below the cost price of S$3.60.

This has reportedly caused slaughter houses to lose up to S$65,000 a day.

If they continue to bleed, owners of slaughter houses said they would either switch to selling cooked chickens or merge in order to have a stronger voice within the poultry industry.


- CNA/so

Launch of "I'm Not a Plastic Bag" at Ngee Ann City cancelled

By May Wong, Channel NewsAsia
24 July 2007

SINGAPORE: The Singapore distributors of "I'm Not a Plastic Bag" have cancelled the launch of the designer bag.

The eco-friendly bag was to have made its debut here at the "On Pedder" store in Ngee Ann City on 18 August.

But the store said it had decided not to go ahead with the launch, following the trouble the bag caused at its launches in Hong Kong and Taiwan earlier this month.

In Taiwan, shoppers pushed and shoved to get their hands on the Anya Hindmarch bag. It caused a stampede and landed some in hospital.

There were similar scenes in Hong Kong, where shoppers lined up for hours to buy the bag, which was produced to encourage shoppers not to use plastic bags.

To avoid such a situation, retailers, not only in Singapore but also in Beijing, Shanghai and Jakarta, have cancelled the bag launch.

In Singapore, the "On Pedder" store said it has been receiving up to 50 calls a day for at least one month.

Most shoppers want to be placed on the waiting list.

The bag, which has been sold out in the US, was to retail here at S$25. - CNA/yy

Singaporeans going green following Bring Your Own Bag drive

By Foo Xiao Xuan, Channel NewsAsia
03 July 2007

SINGAPORE: The National Environment Agency (NEA) said the Bring Your Own Bag Day (BYOBD) campaign, which started in April, has sparked many initiatives to distribute reusable bags from various organisations.

These include the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation (HSBC), North West CDC, South West CDC and Keppel Corporation.

HSBC, for example, launched its "HSBC Green Sale" on 28 June, where for one month, every financial product sold will see the bank donating S$2.80 to its Garden City fund to help conserve the rainforest.

NEA Chief Executive Officer Lee Yuen Hee hopes these initiatives will inspire more people to take ownership of the environment and to do their part against global warming.

The agency will also work with schools to promote the Bring Your Own Bag Day campaign, where students from secondary schools will be at supermarkets to explain the rationale behind the campaign as well as conduct a shopper's survey on it.

Meanwhile, the fourth BYOB Day will be on 4 July and shoppers are encouraged to use reusable bags to bag their purchases on this day.

Alternatively, shoppers can purchase a reusable bag from supermarkets or make a 10 cents donation for each plastic bag that they need.

The donated amount goes to the Singapore Environment Council to fund environmental activities.


- CNA/so

Singapore is 14th most expensive city to live in: survey

By Wong Siew Ying, Channel NewsAsia
18 June 2007

SINGAPORE: Singapore has jumped three places to become the 14th most expensive city in the world for expatriates.

This is according to a Cost of Living Survey conducted by Mercer Human Resource Consulting.

The survey covers 143 cities across six continents and measures the comparative costs of over 200 items.

These include housing, transport, food, household goods and entertainment.

The cost of living Index for Singapore rose from 92 points in March 2006 to 100.4 points this year.

Mercer says the spike in house prices and climbing transportation prices have contributed to the higher ranking on the global list.

Moscow remained as the world's most expensive city for the second year running while Asuncion in Paraguay ranks as the cheapest for the fifth consecutive year.

London is second on the worldwide list, scaling three places compared to 2006.

This is due to the stronger British pound against the US dollar and steep property rental costs.

Mercer added that the strengthening of the Euro has resulted in some European cities moving significantly up the chart this year.

Four of the world's top 10 costliest cities are in Asia and they are Seoul, Tokyo, Hong Kong and Osaka.

Within Asia-Pacific, Singapore moved up one spot to be the fifth most expensive city. - CNA/yy

Google Aims to Go Carbon-Neutral by End 2007

US: June 20, 2007
Story by Timothy Gardner
REUTERS NEWS SERVICE
Source

NEW YORK - Google Inc. aims to cut or offset all of its greenhouse emissions by the end of the year, the Web search leader said on Tuesday .

Google is one of a number of companies, including News Corp., that are attempting to cut all of their emissions of gases scientists link to global warming.
To boost energy efficiency, Google is investing in renewable energy like solar, and will purchase carbon offsets for emissions it cannot reduce directly, the company said on its Web site.

"On their own, carbon offsets are not capable of creating the kinds of fundamental changes to our energy infrastructure that will be necessary to stabilize global greenhouse gas emissions to safe levels," Google said on its Web site. "But we believe that offsets can offer real, measurable, and additional emissions reductions that allow us to take full responsibility for our footprint today."

European companies invest in carbon offsets through the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism. The United States did not ratify Kyoto, but some US companies have begun to offset emissions on a voluntary, unregulated basis.

The company said it would invest in projects like capturing methane, a greenhouse gas with about 20 times the warming potential of carbon dioxide, from animal waste at Mexican and Brazilian farms.

"Our funding makes it possible for anaerobic digesters to be installed, which capture and flare the biogas produced while simultaneously improving local air quality and reducing land and water contamination," Google said.

Nonprofit emissions advisors The Climate Group said they will partner with Google to support its offset plans.

"This is just a start," Google Chairman and Chief Executive Eric Schmidt said in a release issued by The Climate Group. "We are actively looking for more opportunities to help tackle climate change."

Google last week launched a program with semiconductor maker Intel Corp. to introduce more energy-efficient personal computers and server systems.

News Corp. pledged in May to become carbon-neutral by 2010.

Canon Tops List of Climate-Friendly Companies

US: June 20, 2007
Story by Deborah Zabarenko, Environment Correspondent
REUTERS NEWS SERVICE
Source

WASHINGTON - Canon Electronics Inc., athletic gear leader Nike Inc. and food and consumer goods giant Unilever Plc topped a list rating climate-friendly companies released on Tuesday.

There was a cluster at the bottom of the list of 56 companies. Six tied for last, with a score of zero on a 100-point scale -- Jones Apparel Group Inc., CBS Corp., Burger King Holdings Inc., Darden Restaurants Inc., Wendy's International Inc. and Amazon.com.
Even for those at the top, there was room for improvement on the Climate Counts scorecard, put together by a nonprofit group organized by the New England-based environmental entity Clean Air-Cool Planet and Stonyfield Farm, a US organic yogurt maker that placed sixth on the list, with 63.

"It's not enough to recycle paper and change lightbulbs," said Gary Hirshberg, Stonyfield Farm's chief and chair of Climate Counts. "We need to significantly reduce our carbon footprint ... Nobody deserves, or for that matter is getting, an A."

Stonyfield offsets 100 percent of its carbon emissions from manufacturing, Hirshberg said, but it needs to do more with renewable energy to cut the greenhouse gases that spur global warming.

The survey ranked the 56 companies chosen for their popular household use among mainstream consumers in North America and Britain, and for leading their respective sectors, from electronics to fast food.


CLIMATE-CONSCIOUS ELECTRONICS

Companies in the electronics/computer sector did well in addressing climate change compared with media and Internet companies, the survey found, with six of the 12 studied scoring above 50.

Besides Canon, these were International Business Machines Corp., Toshiba Corp., Motorola Inc., Hewlett-Packard Co. and Sony Corp. Dell Inc., Hitachi Ltd., Siemens, Samsung Corp. and Nokia were all in double digits and Apple Inc. scored only 2.

Food services as a sector was worst in terms of climate change impact, with none of the six scoring above 50 and three with a zero rating. Starbucks Corp. ranked highest in this group, with 46, followed by McDonald's Corp., at 22. Yum Brands Inc. -- which includes Kentucky Fried Chicken and Taco Bell -- scored a 1.

The rankings were based on 22 criteria that roughly broke down into four categories: how well a company had reviewed its global warming impact, how much it had reduced that impact, how much it supported public policies that encourage this reduction and whether the company made this information available. The amount of carbon reduction was weighted most heavily, worth a possible 56 out of 100 points.

Hirshberg and others on a telephone news conference announcing the scorecard stressed that this was seen as a "snapshot" of companies' progress. But it was also supposed to work for consumers who want to make an environmentally sound choice.

To do so, they can check the group's Web site, climatecounts.org for individual company rankings and the complete scorecard.

"Green" Helpline to Cut Consumers' Carbon Footprint

UK: June 20, 2007
Story by Jennifer Hill
REUTERS NEWS SERVICE
Source

LONDON - A new service designed to help consumers reduce their carbon footprint aims to boost the number of "green" homes in Britain by half a million within a year.

Greenhelpline.com, which went live on Tuesday, allows people to search environmentally friendly energy tariffs and source local food producers.
The site -- developed by environmentalist Alex Lambie and energy price comparison service energyhelpline.com -- hopes to convert 500,000 homes to electricity from renewable resources within the next 12 months.

Currently, just 150,000 households are on green energy tariffs, of which there are around 17 at present.

Switching to green electricity can cut the average household's annual carbon footprint from energy consumption to four tonnes from six, and save them up to 145 pounds per year, the Web site says.

However, green energy is often more expensive than electricity from non-renewable resources and Lambie concedes that such cost savings will generally only be available to those who have never switched provider.

There are some 25 million householders in the UK -- half of whom have never switched energy supplier.

People already on competitive tariffs will pay an average 10 percent more for "green" energy, while those on the cheapest deals -- such as British Gas' online "Click" tariff -- could pay up to 14 percent more.

"For a slight (cost) increase -- as a worst case scenario -- you can go green and have an immediate positive effect on the environment," Lambie told Reuters.

Users are able to rank green electricity deals by the potential CO2 reduction, price, service rating or fuel mix.

They can also search for local food producers -- such as farm shops, markets, delis, box schemes, "pick your own" sites and bakeries -- within a 50 mile radius of their home.

Once the site is fully developed, consumers will be able to buy local produce through the site, with a proportion of revenues being invested in schemes to help local farmers.

"There's so much confused messaging about what 'going green' is: there's an overload of information, and it's often contradictory," said Lambie.

"These days, there's also so much noise about the 'nanny state' and the way the country is run.

"But here are two really simple things you can do -- ones that will have real measurable effect."

A number of big companies are also being offered the tool to help their customers and staff become more environmentally friendly.

Greenhelpline.com -- which will make a flat rate of commission of 40 pounds per energy switch, from which around two pounds will be profit -- will split revenues 50/50 with the companies who sign up.

This money will then go into a scheme run by greenhelpline.com to give cash-back, vouchers and discounts to those who switch to a greener way of life.