Leong Kaiyan

[SUSTAINING OUR
FUTURE]
The 21st Century is all about saving our planet. Yet, are we doing more harm than good with the
numerous environmental campaigns going on? How then should we move forward?
 CONTENTS

Introduction.................................................................................................................................................................................. 4
Hollywood’s love ................................................................................................................................................................... 4
The World of Campaigns................................................................................................................................................... 4
The Viability issue ................................................................................................................................................................ 5
CARS ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 6
Cash for Clunkers .................................................................................................................................................................. 6
Effectiveness ........................................................................................................................................................................... 6
The Loopholes ........................................................................................................................................................................ 7
The Problem ............................................................................................................................................................................ 8
In search of the Solution ................................................................................................................................................... 8
Energy Tax Act .................................................................................................................................................................. 8
The society of Gas-Guzzlers........................................................................................................................................ 9
Lessons from other parts of the world .............................................................................................................. 10
Earth Hour .................................................................................................................................................................................. 10
Conceptualization .............................................................................................................................................................. 11
Questioning the Effectiveness ..................................................................................................................................... 11
Worldwide Commitments ........................................................................................................................................ 11
Earth Hour specials ..................................................................................................................................................... 12
Publicity overdrive ...................................................................................................................................................... 12
Trees for the “Earth" ................................................................................................................................................... 12
The numbers speak ..................................................................................................................................................... 13
The actual source ............................................................................................................................................................... 13
Increased emissions .................................................................................................................................................... 14
How essential? ............................................................................................................................................................... 14
The switch ............................................................................................................................................................................. 14
Wasteful behaviors ........................................................................................................................................................... 15
Providing incentives......................................................................................................................................................... 15
Smart Grids ........................................................................................................................................................................... 16
The Change ............................................................................................................................................................................ 17
Bring Your Own Bag .............................................................................................................................................................. 17
Once the solution ............................................................................................................................................................... 18
Legislative actions ............................................................................................................................................................. 18
Campaigns ............................................................................................................................................................................. 19
Evolving to become the problem ............................................................................................................................... 19
Reusable bags menace ............................................................................................................................................... 20
Haute Couture ................................................................................................................................................................ 20

No trees were killed in the making of this paper Page 2

 Seeing “Green” ..................................................................................................................................................................... 21
Bio-degradable bags.................................................................................................................................................... 21
Waste control.................................................................................................................................................................. 21
The future of Plastics ....................................................................................................................................................... 22
Moving our World .................................................................................................................................................................. 22
Climate change summits ................................................................................................................................................ 23
Collaboration for a change ............................................................................................................................................ 23
Bibliography .............................................................................................................................................................................. 25

No trees were killed in the making of this paper Page 3

 INTRODUCTION

The world is at war - the War against Terrorism, the War against Totalitarianism, and most

recently, the War against the Humanity, against climate change.

It seems the time has come for us to pay our debts, our humongous debt of reckless pollution

and mercenary abuse of our Earth for the past two centuries since the Industrial revolution.

Indeed, it is only a matter of time before the Earth begins to collapse under the immense

pressure of what we had done and are still doing, especially if we do not stop our gas guzzling

vehicles, mind-blowing developments, and all the fanatical entertainment behavior – at least,

according to Al-Gore and Hollywood. A simple search on the Internet Movie Database (IMDb)

alone found at least 10 movies over the last decade that portrayed how an apocalypse shall

befall our planet in various possible scenarios.

HOLLYWOOD’S LOVE

It seems that this novel Hollywood craze of saving the world from its own destruction appears

to be spreading ironically like an uncontrollable wildfire, both within and outside of Hollywood.

Take for example, former Hollywood actor, and the current governor of California, Arnold

Schwarzenegger gave up his gas-guzzling Hummer for a slightly more modest and green version

powered by hydrogen (Lienert 2005). Along with many other newly baptized tree-huggers of

Hollywood, Schwarzenegger had also adopted the car most noted by environmentalists around

the world – the Toyota Prius.

THE WORLD OF CAMPAIGNS

As Hollywood scriptwriters and superstars clamor for a slice of the green glamour, common

folks around the world are feeling the green heat too. All over the world, governments are

pushing for renewable energy research, setting targets for cuts in emissions and getting more

people to be aware of the environmental impact of their actions. In the United States, the

recently introduced Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Act of 2009 (CARS Act) by the U.S.

No trees were killed in the making of this paper Page 4

Department of Transportation (DoT) aim to cut emissions from old gas-guzzling vehicles, by

providing rebates to car owners who trade in their gas-guzzlers for vehicles with better fuel

consumption figures.

Needless to say, vehicles are not the only consideration in our pursuit for sustainability. It seems

the entire spirit of urban living is in direct discord with conservation. In fact, one will find it

fairly difficult to do something that does not add unnecessary stress on the environment.

In Australia, Sydney became the first city in the world to switch off all non-essential lighting for

an hour in a campaign known as Earth Hour (Sydney Media 2007). This is done annually on the

last Saturday of March from 2030hrs to 2130hrs of each city’s local time. Though the charming

project might have caught the world’s attention and eventually attracted participants from all

over the world, we wonder if its environmental returns justify for its environmental costs.

In 2002, Ireland introduced the PlasTax, charging for plastic carrier bag uses at the retailers’

point-of-sale to encourage the use of reusable bags and stop the use of single-use bags. Likewise

in June 2008, the Singapore Environment Council and the National Environment Agency in

response to campaigns around the world to fight global warming started the Bring Your Own

Bag Day (BYOBD). Similar to the PlasTax, the BYOBD aims to encourage people to use reusable

bags while they shop, especially in supermarkets where plastic bags are given out freely and in

huge quantities (SEC 2009).

THE VIABILITY ISSUE

Although there are no doubts that these campaigns were started in good faith, and although

their visibility is impressive, their viability remains questionable. Are they causing more harm

than good for our environment? This paper aims to explore the viability of various popular

green initiatives throughout the world - analyze their functions objectively and to weigh the

resulting costs and benefits on our environment.

No trees were killed in the making of this paper Page 5

 CARS

At the beginning of the last century, there were less than 10,000 vehicles plying the roads of

America (U.S. News 1999). By 2007, there were 254 million vehicles registered on the roads of

America (BTS 2009). Even though statistics from the Federal Highway Administration shows a

decline in the gallons of oil consumed per vehicle, it is simply not enough to outweigh the

growing vehicle population and some American’s thirst for big trucks (FHWA 2007). As such,

motor fuel consumption by Americans continues to rise year after year.

CASH FOR CLUNKERS

In June 2009, amidst the economic recession and the bankruptcy of two of America’s largest

carmakers – General Motors and Chrysler LLC; U.S. President Barack Obama signed the CARS

Act directing the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to set up the Car Allowance

Rebate System (CARS) program. Otherwise known as “Cash for Clunkers”, CARS is a US$3 billion

taxpayer funded scrap program which aims to lift old gas-guzzlers off the streets of America,

replacing them with newer, more efficient vehicles.

EFFECTIVENESS

The effect of the program, as the DoT claimed is a 58% improvement in fuel economy of the

700,000 or so vehicles bought under the program. On average, vehicles reclaimed under the

scheme had fuel economies of 15.8 MPG, and the new vehicles purchased boasted average fuel

economy of 24.8 MPG. However, the DoT failed to reveal the full details of the vehicles traded in

and the number of trucks as well as Sports-Utility Vehicles (SUV) purchased with taxpayer

funded credit rebates. The program also left numerous loopholes for consumers looking to

purchase newer but not-so-efficient vehicles.

No trees were killed in the making of this paper Page 6

 THE LOOPHOLES

Although regulations are in place to have only inefficient vehicles (<18 MPG1) taken in for the

program, regulations for the new vehicles were lax (National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration 2009). Besides not having regulations against the buying of trucks, the typical

requirements for truck purchases seem to be unsupportive of the issue. Truck owners of trucks

under 6,000lbs looking to purchase new trucks, are only required to seek an improvement of 2

to 5 MPG over their existing trucks (Levine, Cash for Clunkers Signed By President Obama

2009). For trucks up to 8,499lbs, the administration is only seeking those which have a fuel

economy rating of 15 MPG or less. The replacement trucks are only required to have an

improvement of 1 to 2 MPG for a US$3,500 to US$4,500 rebate. Trucks in the category known as

“Work Trucks” weighing between 8,500lbs to 10,000lbs are loosely regulated and the only

requirement is to trade-in a truck manufactured before the year 2002. Also, the base MSRP2 of

the new vehicles cannot exceed US$45,000.

This effectively allows Hummer H2 owners purchase the gas-guzzling Hummer H3, or even the

Ford F-150 SVT Raptor which has a 5.4L V8 engine. The lack of a minimum MPG rating for new

vehicles purchased allowed owners with exceptionally low MPG ratings to purchase new gas-

guzzlers which may have fuel ratings even lower than some of the other vehicles traded-in.

Despite claimed statistics from the DoT that Toyota Corollas and Ford Focus remain the top

purchases after the trade-in rebate, distributors claimed to have process orders of not-so-green

vehicles such as the Cadillac SRX Crossover (Associated Press 2009). Even SUVs such as the Lexus

RX350 and BMW X3 Crossover have models which qualify for new purchases under the program. The

resulting effect is unfortunately more pollution; as manufacturers ramp up production of their

depleted inventories, recyclers work harder to shred more not-so-old vehicles, and buyers who

undoubtedly benefitted from the program have now more cash to spare on gasoline.

1MPG – Miles Per Gallon (Distance travelled in Miles/Fuel used in Gallons)

2MSRP – Manufacturer Suggested Retail Price (the price on the Monroney label, before any features,
options, taxes, or destination charges are added to the price)

No trees were killed in the making of this paper Page 7

 THE PROBLEM

The problem with CARS lies with the desperation of the administration to jump start the

automotive industry after both GM and Chrysler emerged from bankruptcy. Although the

program did cap the funds allocated for “Work Trucks” to be at 7.5%, it still works out to

US$225 million, enough for over 64,000 trucks owners (not inclusive of trucks from the first

two categories) to claim rebates for their new gas-guzzlers. And with the Detroit three as the

largest truck producers in America (Levine, 2008 Year-End Truck Sales Wrap-Up 2009),

coupled with the fact that Americans just cannot let go of their gas-guzzling trucks (Halpert

2009), it is not difficult to understand why the program does not exclude trucks buyers from

getting rebates.

IN SEARCH OF THE SOLUTION

How then are we able to curb the cravings for these huge and fuel hungry machines? Clearly, it

takes more than providing incentives for purchasing of fuel efficient figures - while asking

Americans not to drive may seem harsh, setting punitive damages on those who drive big thirsty

trucks, and rewarding those who do the opposite might just be an effective solution.

ENERGY TAX ACT

In the U.S., the Energy Tax Act mandates for gas-guzzling cars with fuel economy below 22.5

MPG to be taxed (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2009). The tax is levied on the

manufacturer for every car made with fuel economy below the guidelines. The act was enacted

in 1978 to discourage the production and purchase of vehicles with poor fuel economy ratings.

However, the act does not include trucks and SUVs which makes up nearly half of the vehicle

population in America according to data from the Bureau of Transportation. This means that

today, some of the largest contributors to pollution are exempted from the tax the act meant to

curb.

No trees were killed in the making of this paper Page 8

Moreover, the mandated limit of 22.5 MPG is far below world standards. While the Europeans,

Japanese and Singaporean governments have taken drastic steps to reduce their people’s

dependency on cars by improving means of public transportation, the Americans have not only

failed to do so but have also failed to promote more fuel economical vehicles. The Toyota Prius

being the most fuel efficient vehicle in the U.S. uses an average of 50 MPG of fuel (U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency 2009). In contrast, average fuel efficiency in the European

Union is almost 50 MPG. In fact, the U.S. bottoms the list of fuel efficiency, even behind that of

developing countries like China (Pew Center 2006).

THE SOCIETY OF GAS-GUZZLERS

The lack of interest in fuel efficient vehicles could also be attributed to the fact that fuel in the

U.S. generally costs considerably less than other parts of the world (Chevron Corporation n.d.).

While fuel tax in other parts of the world can go as high as 57%, as in the case of Hong Kong

(Caltex Singapore n.d.), the average fuel tax in the U.S. hovers at just 15% across the country

(U.S. Energy Information Administration 2009).

While truck and SUV owners may argue that it is essential for them to own these huge vehicles for

the purpose of carting around the children, their friends, the dogs, backpacks and shopping bags,

there is no sound argument for the need of such a big and powerful engine. On that context, the

way forward with the automotive industry in America will be to balance the needs and wants of

motorists, as well as to raise the bar of what is generally known as “fuel efficient” to match world

standards.

With no efficient public transport in place, it is difficult for Americans to give up their cars.

However, for Americans to realize that they have a part to play in controlling the emission of

greenhouse gases, it is necessary for them to have an immediate tangible experience with the

benefits of conserving the environment, or the lack of it.

No trees were killed in the making of this paper Page 9

 LESSONS FROM OTHER PARTS OF THE WORLD

In the United Kingdom and Singapore, taxes and congestion charges have been introduced to

curb the use of vehicles, especially those with larger capacity engines. At the same time,

incentives are given to those who drive “Green” vehicles. For example, U.K. motorists who drive

cars (inclusive of SUVs and trucks not meant for goods) have to pay taxes based on the amount

of CO2 emissions (Directgov n.d.). And to provide incentives for the owners of “Green” cars, the

taxes and conservation charges are not levied on cars with CO2 emissions of amounts

considered to be negligible. Similarly, vehicle owners in Singapore are required to pay for a

Certificate of Entitlement (COE) based on the engine capacity and type of vehicle before their

purchase (Tay 2005). On top of the COE paid, car owners have to pay road tax based on their

engine capacity and type of engine. Owners of “Green” cars are also entitled to one-off Green

Vehicle Rebates and tax incentives. In both countries, the needs of those in need of larger

vehicles for the shifting of goods are not ignored. Such vehicles are taxed on a different scale and

in line with the Social Exchange Theory (Homans) there are limitations to curb the abuse of such

vehicles. For reasons more important than the safety aspect of matters, goods vehicles have

capped speed limits in both jurisdictions. To further encourage the use of public transport in

Singapore, the Off-Peak Car (OPC) was introduced. Owners of OPCs are given rebates on their

COE and also pay less road tax. In exchange, the vehicles are limited on the hours they are

allowed on the roads (Singapore Land Transport Authority 2009).

The models used by the U.K. and Singapore, although imperfect, are good examples for the U.S.

DoT. The U.S. DoT should model on these examples to create policies and tweaks to work in

tango, gradually improving vehicular CO2 emissions as well as fuel efficiency.

EARTH HOUR

While there are times when campaigns have environmentalists up in arms protesting, there are

also times when they embrace it like the trees that they protect. In much contrast to CARS, the

No trees were killed in the making of this paper Page 10

Earth Hour campaign had received much positive limelight, and had, over the years, gained

immense popularity worldwide.

CONCEPTUALIZATION

The campaign, first conceptualized by the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) Australia and

Fairfax Media Group’s subsidiary, The Sydney Morning Herald (Sydney Media 2007) began its

debut on March 31, 2007 with an estimated number of 2.2 million Sydney residents

participating (WWF 2007). Energy Australia estimated that during that hour, Sydney's Central

Business District had successfully cut its energy consumption by 10.2%. WWF also claimed that

the energy saved during this short hour is equivalent to taking 48,613 cars off the road for an

hour, or having 200,000 television sets switched off for an hour. As commendable as these

figures may seem, such savings are lamentably insignificant if spread out on a larger base unit of

a year - when translated, it only equates to taking 5 cars off the roads of Sydney, or just over 20

televisions sets off the plugs for a year, an amount easily overshadowed by yearly increments.

QUESTIONING THE EFFECTIVENESS

Could Earth Hour then, be a mere publicity stunt worth nothing more than a dime in a

millionaire’s pocket? Is it no more than a campaign for “environmental” companies to cash in

and attract consumers to their products and services? An event that is more wasteful then it

claims to save?

WORLDWIDE COMMITMENTS

In 2007, when Earth Hour was first mooted, over 2,000 businesses in Australia committed

themselves to the cause. By 2009, the organizers claimed the commitment of over 4,000 cities

in 88 countries globally. With the amount of public awareness already generated by the

organizers, it is no wonder that businesses around the world are in full support of it – it’s free

publicity. In this manner, dimming their non-essential lighting actually brought light onto their

businesses.

No trees were killed in the making of this paper Page 11

 EARTH HOUR SPECIALS

Restaurants, cafes, bistros took the opportunity to promote their Earth Hour specials – dining in

the dark by the candlelight, organic food menus, and discounts on alcohol (Khoo and Lee 2009).

A restaurant in Phoenix, Arizona took the liberty to concoct a drink called ecotini – a cocktail of

organic vodka, green tea, and an edible orchid (Vedantam 2008); Search giant, Google darkened

their webpage (Google n.d.); Swedish milk producer Arla, created a limited edition “blackout”

carton (Adland 2009). Besides the limited edition products, global brands such as McDonald’s,

Coca-Cola, Bank of America, also dimmed their non-essential lightings, all in the name of Earth

Hour.

PUBLICITY OVERDRIVE

To raise awareness for the campaign, the organizers went on a global promotional campaign.

Posters and banners were put up everywhere, on the streets, bus stops, train stations,

government buildings, and participating businesses. In Singapore, celebrations sprawled the

grounds of Botanic Gardens and Esplanade Park as concerts go on with candles in the hands of

participants (WWF Singapore 2009).

Such publicity hype, as critics argue, merely adds to the impact of climate change. The

promotional packages that restaurants offer, inevitably creates a pardonable excuse for

consumers to binge and waste food. The posters and banners, printed and distributed, added to

the junk that participating cities had to clear after the event. The candles used were in fact

causing more pollution than energy efficient lightings.

TREES FOR THE “EARTH"

While there are no official statistics tracking the number of banners, posters, and other printed

materials used for the specific intention of promoting this campaign, a report obtained from the

Commissioner of the Development Services Department for the City of Oshawa, Ontario

described the use of printed promotional materials for the campaign in the city – in all, the city

No trees were killed in the making of this paper Page 12

printed 600 posters, 4,000 postcards, published advertisements in major newspapers in the city

(Hodgins and Elston 2009). Going by estimates of WWF that over 4,000 cities participated in

Earth Hour 2009, 2.4 million posters, and 16 million postcards could have been printed and left

to waste at the end of the 2009 campaign. The irony that a forest may be destroyed in the name

of promoting an environmental initiative could perhaps become the joke of the century.

THE NUMBERS SPEAK

These numbers do not take into account the pollution caused by the staging of concerts,

pollution from the candles burnt, and pollution caused by the media coverage of the event. To

stage the concerts, cranes and trucks are activated to put the stage, necessary logistics, as well

as the performers in place. On top of that, media coverage for the event adds more miles to the

breakeven “cost” the message has to be carried across and carried out for the damage caused.

On top of all matters, workers who were supposed to work during the hour, but chose to

participate, will now have to work an extra hour into the night, putting the savings to a naught

while adding to the miles.

THE ACTUAL SOURCE

Contrary to popular belief, switching off the lights and lighting up the candle does not actually

reduce our carbon footprints. Most candles are made of paraffin wax, an Alkane Hydrocarbon

distillated from crude oil, the scarce resource that we are trying to conserve through this

campaign (Hanson n.d.). Besides the fact that Paraffin is obtained from crude oil, it actually

emits more greenhouse gases and other forms of pollution as compared to modern power

plants. Paraffin, as obtained from crude oil through fractional distillation, has a higher energy

density than natural gas, gasoline, and diesel (King n.d.). Although so, most of the energy

released from Paraffin wax is lost as heat – good for generation of electricity, but bad for

lighting. The longer chain of hydrocarbon molecules in Paraffin naturally produces more carbon

emissions into the air. Researchers at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have also

found that candles commonly sold in the market contain lead-treated wicks which expose the

No trees were killed in the making of this paper Page 13

entire household to the danger of the toxic fumes emitted from such candles (Randerson 2002).

While, modern power plants use advanced filters to prevent harmful toxins from being emitted

into the air, candles with their naked flame are totally exposed to the environment.

INCREASED EMISSIONS

Ironically, the candles used in the campaign to “Vote Earth” have not only increased carbon

emissions, but are a waste of precious resources. A typical candle emits 13 lumens of light

visible to the human eye, as a result of burning wax which produces about 40W of energy, most

of which is lost to heat (Viklund 2008). In contrast, 40W of energy will be able to power an

incandescent bulb to produce 500 lumens and a fluorescent bulb to produce up to 3,600 lumens

(Philips Lighting Company 2005). At the end of the day, the world might have been better off

without Earth Hour.

HOW ESSENTIAL?

As critics argue, if lights that were turned off for Earth Hour were non-essential, why do we

have them in the first place? Of course, businesses will retort that in this competitive

environment, they have to stand out and the lightings enhance their façade. Surely then, they

are able to replace all existing lightings with energy efficient bulbs without taking away the

effect? However, with the increased cost, will businesses bite?

THE SWITCH

It has been estimated that, if everyone who had participated in Earth Hour swapped their

incandescent or halogen lights for fluorescent lights, the energy saved might have amounted to

1,368 times the amount saved during Earth Hour as the switch allows savings year round. But

what can governments do to make consumers and businesses do the switch?

No trees were killed in the making of this paper Page 14

 WASTEFUL BEHAVIORS

Governments should be aware that no amount of energy saved is sufficient if consumers and

businesses continue with their wasteful behaviors. Take Singapore for example – During the

inaugural Earth Hour in March 2009, the Energy Market Authority (EMA) in Singapore recorded

a 42 megawatt drop in electricity demand (Channel NewsAsia 2009). However, the amount

saved is easily overshadowed by energy divested to light the Marina Bay Street Circuit in

anticipation of the Singapore Grand Prix. Energy saved from Earth Hour can only offset a

maximum of 14 hours lighting up the circuit’s 1,500 lighting projectors which uses 3 megawatts

of power an hour (Ho 2007). The lights were installed at least 2 weeks prior to the 3-day race

and went through numerous tests for which they were left “illuminating” the streets for hours

through days and nights. Furthermore, the 3-day race itself consumed over 500 megawatts of

electricity which organizers hope to recover through natural sources – a process that will take

at least 40 days to complete (Chia 2009).

PROVIDING INCENTIVES

Indeed, there is no end to saving or wasting Earth’s precious resources. Instead of simply

educating consumers about the need to cut energy consumption, governments should

proactively encourage consumers to make the switch by providing incentives to those who

adopt energy efficient products in their daily lives, both consumers and businesses. The U.S. is

one such country providing incentives for the purchase of products which are energy efficient

or generates renewable energy (US Department of Energy n.d.). Eligible applicants are entitled

to tax credits on the purchase of items such as, Biomass Stoves, Heating-Ventilating-and-Air-

Conditioning (HVAC), Insulation, and appliances utilizing solar energy. Applications are also

opened to receive rebates on purchases of ENERGY STAR appliances under the American

Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act), a US$300 million funding from the U.S.

federal government. Recently, U.S. President Barack Obama has also started to push for more

incentives for home owners who retrofit their homes with better insulation and appliances that

No trees were killed in the making of this paper Page 15

are more energy efficient. Dubbed, “Cash for Caulkers”, the program builds on past incentives to

bring the incentives to a larger population, to achieve targeted energy savings of US$3.3 billion

(Walsh 2009).

While some countries target their incentives at home users, there are others which place

corporations on their priority list. Singapore for example, provides incentives to industrial,

construction, and even power generation sectors. Programs such as Energy Efficiency

Improvement Assistance Scheme (EASe) (Gunasingham 2009), Design for Efficiency scheme

(DfE), and Grant for Energy Efficient Technology (GREET) are few of the incentives that the

Singapore National Environment Agency (NEA) initiated to help industry consumers of energy,

builders, and energy producers to take the leap onto the green wagon. The NEA had also made

provisions for manufacturers, distributors, and retailers to put up Mandatory Energy Labeling

under the Environmental Protection and Management Act (EPMA). Under the act, traders and

businesses are not allowed to supply or sell any goods mandated by the NEA without the energy

label (NEA 2009). This provision allows consumers to have greater awareness of the product’s

energy usage and also allow for a better comparison of products.

SMART GRIDS

Incentives are good measures to urge people to go on the green path; they are however, not

enough to curb the demand for energy as our economy progresses. A look into electricity

consumption in Singapore shows that the consumption per capita has almost doubled since

1990 (Eugene 2009). As it is expensive to store electricity, power stations generate electricity

on a just-in-time basis. As such, the demand for electricity has to be constantly gauged to

prevent power outages or over generation. To solve this problem, it is essential to stabilize

electrical demand, hence, the introduction of Smart Grids. Smart Grids are essentially power

grids that intelligently monitor the use of electricity, regulating the use of devices over peak and

off-peak periods (Department of Energy 2008). Smart Grids such as the Intelligent Energy

System (IES) and the Electricity Vending System (EVS) launched by the EMA are connected to

No trees were killed in the making of this paper Page 16

Smart Meters that informs end-users as well as providers of the amount of electricity needed at

any time of the day. Such systems also allow providers to vary their electricity charges based on

end-user demand. The system automatically turns devices on or off depending on their

immediate needs to take advantage of lower electricity prices during off-peak hours (Energy

Market Authority 2009). Not only will consumers save on their bills – up to 30%, by off loading

non-immediate needs, providers will not have to constantly add capacity to meet peak period

demands (Cheam 2009).

THE CHANGE

Indeed, it is becoming blatantly evident that our resources are running out faster than we can

handle or anticipate; our hasty impetuous consumption have accumulated substantial damage

on our environment and we are beginning to feel its effects. With such overloading hype and

publicity surrounding climate change, resource depletion, and irresponsible over-consumption,

raising awareness should no longer be our sole focus and objective. Given the current state of

affairs, the issue should extend from knowing to doing – while we know through campaigns that

we can do our part to save these resources, the ultimate question lies on whether we, upon

knowing, bother enough to make a sufficiently-drastic and sustainable effort to change for the

better. It seems that the practical solution to our woes is to simply fuel such motivation.

BRING YOUR OWN BAG

In the year 2008, over 70 million vehicles were produced, still, a 3.7% drop from the year before

(OICA 2008). 70 million may seem like a frightening number, yet, it can’t be compared to the

500 billion to a trillion plastic bags consumed worldwide (Chait 2008). That makes for over a

million plastic bags consumed every minute and a constant target of the environmentalists.

No trees were killed in the making of this paper Page 17

 ONCE THE SOLUTION

Plastic bags were introduced some 30 years ago as an alternative to the paper bags. Its

convenience and ruggedness quickly won the hearts of consumers, yet these very

characteristics of plastic bags became the bane of the issue. Cheaper to produce than paper

bags, retailers gave them out freely much to the aghast of environmentalists who lament that

these “indestructible” products of crude oil will remain to crowd the Earth beyond our lifetime.

The constant lamenting from environmentalists became more rampant in recent years bringing

about the introduction of legislation on the use of plastic bags, taxes, and most importantly

reusable bags, bags that are supposed to carry your groceries for life. Made from plastic, plant

fiber, hemp, raw or processed cotton, these bags together with the laws are touted to solve the

environmental issues at hand. But, are they really?

LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS

To discourage the use plastic bags, several governments around the world have tried to impose

laws to ban certain bags, and tax others. San Francisco became the first city in the U.S. to impose

a ban on plastic bags in December 2007 (San Francisco Environment Department n.d.), Indian

capital New Delhi imposed a ban on thin single-use plastic bags previously, and followed to

impose a total ban (Ramesh 2009), another Indian state Himachal Pradesh had the ban in place

since 2003 (Chauhan 2003). Ireland introduced the famous “PlasTax” in 2002, making

consumers pay what is now 22 euro cents for a bag. Within weeks of PlasTax, demand for the

bags dropped an amazing 94 percent, and almost everyone owns a reusable bag (Rosenthal

2008). The tax also yielded €9.6 million in its first year to fund green programs in Ireland.

Elsewhere around the world, China, Australia, Britain and many other countries have also

started legislations on the use of bags.

No trees were killed in the making of this paper Page 18

 CAMPAIGNS

Alongside the many laws around the world, Bring Your Own Bag (BYOB) campaigns have also

erupted worldwide. In Singapore, the SEC dedicates the first Wednesday of the month to be

known as BYOBD, encouraging shoppers to bring their own reusable bags, while those who use

the plastic carrier bags are to pay for them. Proponents say that compared to single-use bags,

these reusable bags, if used with care, can be reused over and over again, thus cutting reducing

plastic production. Moreover, these bags are sometimes made from plant or other organic

substance which already cuts our dependency on crude oil. A study by French retailer Carrefour

in 2004 found that, using the bag – regardless of the material it is made from, at least four times

is already better for the environment (Ball 2009). This has prompted the marketing department

of almost any organization, ranging from supermarkets to local councils, sell or give-away such

reusable bags. Slowly, however, these solutions have become the problem itself.

EVOLVING TO BECOME THE PROBLEM

PlasTax for example is widely known to have reduced consumption of plastic carrier bags by

over 90% within weeks of legislation. However, a separate study by an independent statistical

analyst in 2005 suggests that even though the consumption of plastic carrier bags was reduced

after the introduction of the tax, trade statistics show that consumption of other plastic bags,

mostly heavy-duty trash bags, increased by 400% (American Chemistry Council n.d.). The study,

commissioned by the Packaging and Industrial Films Association (PIFA), showed that Ireland

imported bags and sacks estimated to be the equivalent of 5 billion lightweight plastic carrier

bags in 2005, a 20.6% year-on-year increase (Height 2006). The reason for the increase is

simple. Although people do not usually recycle the plastic bags they get from supermarkets,

60% reuse them (Plastic Bags Working Group 2002). Without the free bags to line their bins,

dump their waste, or just for general carrying, people resort to buying bags off the shelf, an act

which merely changes the source of the problem. Free bag bans in places like China weren’t very

effective either. Even though Chinese authorities reported a 66% drop in the use of plastic bags

No trees were killed in the making of this paper Page 19

in supermarkets (China Daily 2009), the ban is mostly disregarded by smaller businesses like

wet market vendors who are already facing tough competition (People's Daily Online 2008).

Worst though is the situation in “clean-green” Singapore. The BYOBD merely created the hype in

its first 2 months of introduction as the need to pay for the bags is voluntary; many shoppers

simply ignore the message.

REUSABLE BAGS MENACE

The key solution to the problem has also started to evolve into an immense menace. When they

were first introduced, reusable bags were common sight only on the racks of major

supermarkets with international presence. Not many were bothered by their presence with the

huge price tag attached to it and the cashiers still distributing bags freely. In the recent years

however, reusable bags are either treated as fashion accessories or freely obtainable items like

their single-use counterparts. To entice consumer, many retailers have switched to using

reusable bags (Tan 2009) in place of the traditional paper or plastic bags giving consumers

more reusable bags than they need (Gamerman 2008). A common sight at community events

and corporate functions, these bags have become commodities (Teitell 2008).

HAUTE COUTURE

Then, there are others who cash in on the interests going with such bags. For something more

stylish than what you can get at Wal-Mart, Carrefour, or other supermarkets will cost anything

from US$8 to US$1,720 (Athavaley 2008). Sure, Anya Hindmarch did her part for the community

by coming up with the limited edition “I’m not a plastic bag” selling for only US$15 – a far cry

from the usual asking price for bags under her label, but the bags were in such demand, the

resale value on eBay easily carried a price tag of US$800 (Bonisteel 2007). Designer Stella

McCartney offered her version of the reusable bag made with organic cotton for US$495, while

the not so environmental friendly bags from other labels like, Marni – made of nylon, Hermes –

made of silk, and Louis Vuitton – made of satin, go for US$843, US$960, and $1,720 respectively.

No trees were killed in the making of this paper Page 20

All of a sudden, reusable bags don’t seem to be as appealing to both consumers and the

environment after all.

SEEING “GREEN”

However, we should not dispute the potential benefits that the legislations and reusable bags

yields. PlasTax did for a fact bring down the number of plastic/paper carrier bags consumed at

supermarkets, and also supported a “green fund” initiated by the Irish government. What the

introduction of the PlasTax failed to was to provide an alternative “green” product to the many

people who reuse the plastic bags obtained.

BIO-DEGRADABLE BAGS

Bio-degradable bags, although not as environmentally friendly as reusable bags which last for

many more uses, are essential to the everyday needs of the people. As compared to the

conventional plastic bags which will take hundreds to thousands of years to decompose, bio-

degradable/compostable plastic decomposes do so in a much shorter time frame of 1 to 2 years

(EPI n.d.). Made from either plants or crude oil, these new generation plastics create less harm

for the environment as they disintegrate when exposed to light and air.

Amazing as it may sound, most bio-degradable plastics are still made from crude oil, just as

conventional plastics are. Therefore, it should only be used for bagging the trash away. Bio-

degradable plastics should also not be mixed with plastics that are meant for recycling.

Additives are added to these plastics for it to degrade much faster, recycling it with the

conventional plastics will contaminate the new product.

WASTE CONTROL

Policymakers should also keep the incineration of plastic waste under their radar. Plastics made

from crude oil have similar energy densities as compared to the product it is made from, and

should therefore produce the same amount of energy when burnt (Kittle 1993). New waste-to-

energy facilities like the Tuas South Incineration Plant are not only able depend solely on the

No trees were killed in the making of this paper Page 21

energy generated from its own facilities, but are also able to make as much as 80% of its energy

output available to the grid (Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources 2000). The plant

which is able to generate 80MW of electricity joins the other waste-to-energy incineration

plants in Singapore to supply 2-3% of the country’s daily needs. Incineration reduces the

volume of waste by a substantial 90%, and reduces large unsightly items to ashes, making our

landfills last longer. Just as power plants burning the variants of crude oil cause pollution,

incinerators too emit greenhouse gases. Especially with certain bio-plastics which are made

from plant based products. These bio-plastics release Methane which is several times more

potent than Carbon-dioxide as a greenhouse gas and should be brought to special facilities

(Vidal 2008).

THE FUTURE OF PLASTICS

Much to the displeasure of most environmentalists, plastics are here to stay, in part attributed

to the consideration of sheer economics and mindless adherence to convenience. Although so,

more should be done in the research and development to develop technologies, such as advance

plastics that require lesser materials to produce, as well as improved filters in incineration

plants to help in cutting emissions. We need not have to stop using plastics altogether – they

keep our trash together, protect our food, and provide shelter for our people, but it is important

that we reduce our usage for the world to keep going.

MOVING OUR WORLD

The various illustrations of the how the world has changed through various campaigns and

policies implemented show the need for the world to work together and evolve our methods at

handling climate change. It is impossible for us to remain at a standstill, in an era when

advanced mode of transportations do not exist, in an era where we use candles to light up our

surroundings, in an era when trash is left in the open, exposed to the surrounding environment.

No trees were killed in the making of this paper Page 22

In a this hugely advanced and globalized world, we have been able to cut labor costs, we have

been able to break cultural barriers, yet we are unable to cut greenhouse emissions, on the

contrary, emissions have increased! The globalized world showcased how better productivity

could be achieved through “sharing of labor”. It also allowed us to understand one and another’s

backgrounds better through the “sharing of cultures”. So why are we not sharing ideas to reduce

emission levels and help shape the world into a better place?

CLIMATE CHANGE SUMMITS

All we did in the past climate change summits were to point accusative fingers at each other for

being the greatest polluter. While the U.S. jabs its accusing finger at China as world’s biggest

emitter, it likewise generates 20 tons of CO 2 per capita as compared to China’s 4 tons of CO 2 per

capita (Prescott 2009). China then raises its arms in defense, and claimed that the western

countries have already done the damage while its economy was still smoldering back home.

However, fighting climate change isn’t about finding who is responsible for the damage done,

whose economy has to take the brunt for the “cost” of this fight. As Nobel Prize laureate,

Bertrand Russell once said, “War does not determine who is right; only who is left”. If we should

continue having more Kyoto Protocols, and Copenhagen Accords, then we are indeed doomed

for the end of the world. Instead of cutting trees for brochures that no one actually reads

(Jeunesse 2009), at a summit where leaders pledge emission cuts which no one really bothers

about (The Economic Times 2009), why are we not having peace talks in a peaceful manner?

COLLABORATION FOR A CHANGE

The summit could have been more effective if the leaders were there to deliberate and

collaborate on the various environmental policies to be implemented worldwide. There may be

ideas for which certain nations are not able to undertake for some restrictions they might have,

but it doesn’t mean others are not able to do it. Despite the problems discussed about CARS,

Earth Hour, and BYOB, the initiatives are not totally bad; what it needs is some fine tweaking.

No trees were killed in the making of this paper Page 23

CARS will require more sound enforcement, Earth Hour really needs less wastage and more

knowledge, and BYOB has to work on its limits to provide the boundless opportunities. With

much collaboration, some of these campaigns may just be able to succeed.

At times, the unwillingness to cooperate on an international scale boils down to the greed of the

nations involved. The poorer countries want more and the wealthier ones feel that they have

been giving far too much. The overall picture then, looks grim.

However, if nations were to take a step back and look at things from a different perspective,

rather than just profits, their “Return on Investment” may be a lot greater than before.

Modernized economies will be able to harness the lower cost labor and the vast lands in

developing economies such as Indonesia, Vietnam, Eastern Europe, and South America to

manufacture, as well as test their products. In return, the developing economies are likely to

benefit from the new technologies embedded into their infrastructure.

The collaboration then, shifts the world towards a more cost effective economy yet one that

benefits the environment as it progresses. If only one day, the leaders of our world focus their

attention instead to these environmental causes, we may get the chance to smile upon this

wonderful Earth.

No trees were killed in the making of this paper Page 24

 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adland. Arla blackouts the milk cartons for Earth Hour. March 19, 2009.
http://adland.tv/content/arla-blackouts-milk-cartons-earth-hour (accessed January 10, 2010).

Agence France Presse. "Long queues, restrictions spark anger at UN climate talks." Agence
France Presse, December 15, 2009.

American Chemistry Council. The Truths Behind Ireland's Plastic Bag Tax.
http://www.americanchemistry.com/s_plastics/doc.asp?CID=1106&DID=8390 (accessed
January 24, 2010).

Associated Press. Some clunker cash buying not-so-green vehicles. August 13, 2009.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32405860/ns/business-autos// (accessed January 1, 2010).

Athavaley, Anjali. "Style: Shopping Around / Reusable Shopping Bags." The Wall Street Journal,
March 22, 2008: D8.

Ball, Jeffrey. "Paper or Plastic? A New Look at the Bag Scourge." The Wall Street Journal, June 12,
2009: A11.

Beattie, Alan Cookson, and Clive. "The future is worse than we think." The Financial Times,
December 23, 2009: 15.

Bonisteel, Sara. "Behold the $800 Reusable Grocery Bag." FOXNews.com. June 19, 2007.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,284395,00.html (accessed January 24, 2010).

BTS. "Table 1-11: Number of U.S. Aircraft, Vehicles, Vessels, and Other Conveyances." Bureau of
Transportation Statistics. April 10, 2009.
http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_01_11.html
(accessed December 28, 2009).

Caltex Singapore. Why Do Petroleum Prices Rise and Fall?

http://www.caltex.com/pumpprices/whydoPricesRiseAndFall.asp (accessed January 3, 2010).

Chait, Jennifer. Plastic Bags – Facts & Figures. June 5, 2008.

http://www.blisstree.com/treehuggingfamily/plastic-bags-facts-figures/ (accessed January 23,
2010).

Channel NewsAsia. "Over 1.6 million took part in Earth Hour Singapore." Channel NewsAsia, May
22, 2009.

Chauhan, Baldev. "Indian state outlaws plastic bags." BBC News. August 7, 2003.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/south_asia/3132387.stm (accessed January 24, 2010).

Cheam, Jessica. "Ultra-smart systems give homes greener hue." The Straits Times, December 13,
2009.

Chevron Corporation. How Countries Compare.

http://www.thepriceoffuel.com/howcountriescompare/ (accessed January 3, 2010).

Chia, Valerie. "Singapore GP to go green." The Straits Times, April 7, 2009.

No trees were killed in the making of this paper Page 25

China Daily. "One year after plastic bag ban, how is China doing?" chinadaily.com.cn. May 26,
2009. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2009-05/26/content_7944466.htm (accessed
January 24, 2010).

Department of Energy. "The Smart Grid: What it is, What it isn't." In The Smart Grid: An
Introduction, by DoE. Litos Strategic Communication, 2008.

Directgov. The cost of vehicle tax for cars, motorcycles, light goods vehicles and trade licences.
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/OwningAVehicle/HowToTaxYourVehicle/DG_1001252
4 (accessed January 3, 2010).

Energy Market Authority. "Singapore's Intelligent Energy System Pilot Project: First Step
towards a Smarter Grid." Singapore Government News, November 18, 2009.

EPI. How Does Oxo Biodegradable Plastic Work? http://www.epi-global.com/en/how-it-

works.php (accessed January 26, 2010).

Eugene. Overview of the Energy Situation in Singapore. May 14, 2009.

http://www.lowcarbonsg.com/2009/05/14/overview-of-the-energy-situation-in-singapore/
(accessed January 17, 2010).

FHWA. "Highway Statistics 2007." US Department of Transportation Federal Highway

Administration. 2007. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2007/mvfvm.cfm
(accessed December 28, 2009).

Gamerman, Ellen. "An Inconvenient Bag." The Wall Street Journal, September 26, 2008: W1.

Google. Earth Hour. http://www.google.com/intl/en/earthhour/ (accessed January 10, 2010).

Gunasingham, Amresh. "More firms going green to cut costs." The Straits Times, February 7,
2009.

Halpert, Julie. "Pinning Big Hopes on Little Cars." Newsweek. November 25, 2009.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/224324 (accessed January 2, 2010).

Hanson, Allen L. "Paraffin." AccessScience@McGraw-Hill. McGraw-Hill.

Height, Andrea. New figures question bag tax success. September 7, 2006.
http://www.mrw.co.uk/page.cfm/action=Archive/ArchiveID=17/EntryID=2182 (accessed
January 24, 2010).

Ho, Victoria. Singapore F1 names lighting contractor. October 16, 2007.

http://www.zdnetasia.com/news/business/0,39044229,62033396,00.htm (accessed January
11, 2010).

Hodgins, Thomas B., and Suzanne Elston. Earth Hour 2009. Public Report, Oshawa: Oshawa
Development Services Department, 2009.

Jeunesse, William La. "Mountain of Waste at Copenhagen." Live Shots: FOX News. December 21,
2009. http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/12/16/mountain-of-waste-at-copenhagen/
(accessed February 1, 2010).

Khoo, Brittany, and Jamie Lee. "Who wins when the lights go out?" Business Times Singapore,
March 28, 2009.

King, C. Judson. "Distillation." AccessScience@McGraw-Hill. McGraw-Hill.

No trees were killed in the making of this paper Page 26

Kittle, Paul A. "HEATS OF COMBUSTION OF REPRESENTATIVE MATERIALS." In Alternate Daily
Cover Materials and Subtitle D - The Selection Technique, by Paul A. Kittle, 5. West Chester, PA:
Rusmar Incorporated, 1993.

Levine, Mike. "2008 Year-End Truck Sales Wrap-Up." PickupTrucks.com. January 7, 2009.
http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2009/01/2008-year-end-t.html (accessed January 2, 2010).

—. "Cash for Clunkers Signed By President Obama." Pickuptrucks.com. June 25, 2009.
http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2009/06/cash-for-clunkers-signed-by-president-obama.html
(accessed January 01, 2010).

Lienert, Dan. Arnold's Hydrogen Hummer. 2005.

http://www.forbes.com/2005/01/04/cx_dl_0104vow_print.html (accessed December 27,
2009).

Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources. NEW FEATURES IN SINGAPORE'S LARGEST
AND NEWEST INCINERATION PLANT. Nov 25, 2000.
http://app.mewr.gov.sg/web/Contents/Contents.aspx?Yr=2000&ContId=500 (accessed
January 26, 2010).

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. "49 CFR Chapter V Consumer Assistance To
Recycle and Save Act of 2009; Proposed Rule." In Federal Register, by Ronald L. Medford, 31812-
31817. National Archives and Records Administration, 2009.

NEA. About Mandatory Energy Labelling. 2009.

http://app.nea.gov.sg/cms/htdocs/category_sub.asp?cid=258 (accessed January 16, 2010).

Negi, Biju. "Ballad Of Nopenhagen." Outlook, December 28, 2009.

OICA. OICA: 2008 Production Statistics. 2008. http://oica.net/category/production-statistics/

(accessed January 18, 2010).

People's Daily Online. "How China's plastic bag ban works." People's Daily Onlin. June 18, 2008.
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90780/91345/6432630.html# (accessed January 24,
2010).

Pew Center. "Climate Change 101: Technological Solutions." In Climate Change 101:
Understanding and Responding to Global Climate Change, 5. 5: Pew Center on Global Climate
Change and the Pew Center on the States., 2006.

Philips Lighting Company. "Philips Advantage T12 Fluorescent Lamps." Philips, June 2005.

Plastic Bags Working Group. "Waste Disposal." In Plastic Shopping Bags in Australia, by Anthea
Tinney, et al., 11. Australia: Plastic Bags Working Group, 2002.

Prescott, John. "CLIMATE CHANGE: What did the Copenhagen summit really achieve?" The
Observer, December 20, 2009: 31.

Ramesh, Randeep. "Delhi to outlaw plastic bags." guardian.co.uk. January 16, 2009.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/16/plastic-bags-india-delhi-ban (accessed
January 24, 2010).

Randerson, James. Candle pollution. June 22, 2002.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg17423481.900-candle-

No trees were killed in the making of this paper Page 27

pollution.html?haasFormId=4755e0cc-f51b-4173-80d7-021bf157cf4a&haasPage=0 (accessed
January 10, 2010).

Rosenthal, Elisabeth. "Irish help to banish a plastic nuisance." International Herald Tribune,
February 1, 2008: 1.

San Francisco Environment Department. Plastic Bag Ban.

http://www.sfenvironment.org/our_programs/interests.html?ssi=7&ti=6&ii=142 (accessed
January 24, 2010).

SEC. "Singapore Environment Council : : About BYOBD." Singapore Environment Council. 2009.
http://www.sec.org.sg/community/bring-your-own-bag-day/about (accessed December 28,
2009).

Singapore Land Transport Authority. Vehicle Ownership. December 21, 2009.

http://www.lta.gov.sg/motoring_matters/motoring_vo_policynschemes_offpeak.htm (accessed
January 3, 2010).

Sydney Media. Earth Hour - Earth Always. May 18, 2007.

http://www.sydneymedia.com.au/html/3263-earth-hour---earth-always.asp (accessed
December 28, 2009).

—. Earth Hour - Earth Always. May 18, 2007. http://www.sydneymedia.com.au/html/3263-

earth-hour---earth-always.asp (accessed January 9, 2010).

Tan, Trinia. "Goodwood Park Hotel offers reusable bags with its mooncake packaging."
PackWebAsia.com. October 1, 2009. http://packwebasia.com/sustainable-
applications/goodwood-park-hotel-offers-reusable-bags-with-its-mooncake-packaging.html
(accessed January 24, 2010).

Tay, Chris. Financial Information on Car Ownership in Singapore . October 9, 2005.

http://www.oneshift.com/articles/article.php?artid=1&pageid=1&view=1 (accessed January 3,
2010).

Teitell, Beth. "She loses it over reusable bags." The Boston Globe, April 17, 2008: D.5.

The Economic Times. "Copenhagen fails." The Economic Times, December 21, 2009: Editorial.

U.S. Energy Information Administration. Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update. December 28, 2009.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/gdu/gasdiesel.asp (accessed January 3, 2010).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010 Most and Least Fuel Efficient Vehicles. October 15,
2009. http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/FEG2000.htm (accessed January 3, 2010).

—. Gas Guzzler Tax. December 23, 2009. http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/guzzler/ (accessed

January 3, 2010).

U.S. News. "America Start Your Engines." U.S. News and World Report. December 27, 1999.
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/991227/kettering.htm (accessed December 29, 2009).

US Department of Energy. Energy Savers: Financial Opportunities.

http://www.energysavers.gov/financial/ (accessed December 27, 2009).

Vedantam, Shankar. "On Climate, Symbols Can Overshadow Substance; Lights-Out Event More
Showy Than Practical." The Washington Post, May 17, 2008.

No trees were killed in the making of this paper Page 28

Vidal, John. "'Sustainable' bio-plastic can damage the environment." guardian.co.uk. April 26,
2008. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/apr/26/waste.pollution (accessed
January 27, 2010).

Viklund, Andreas. Earth Hour, candles and carbon. March 31, 2008.
http://enochthered.wordpress.com/2008/03/31/earth-hour-candles-and-carbon/ (accessed
January 10, 2010).

Walsh, Susan. "You can do it. The government can help." Associated Press, December 18, 2009:
A14.

WMN. "Cars Could Run On Cooking Oil." Western Morning News, 2003: 33.

WWF. Congratulations Sydney! Earth Hour 2007 results. April 2, 2007.

http://wwf.org.au/news/congratulations-sydney-earth-hour-2007-results/ (accessed January
10, 2010).

WWF Singapore. WWF Singapore announces official itinerary for Earth Hour. March 24, 2009.
http://www.panda.org/who_we_are/wwf_offices/singapore/news_publications/?160541/WW
F-Singapore-announces-official-itinerary-for-Earth-Hour (accessed January 10, 2010).

Yong, Debbie. "HDB home owner installs solar panel." Straits Times, February 22, 2009.

No trees were killed in the making of this paper Page 29