Baby turtles

Eight o’clock. We knew turtle hatchlings from nest 585 were very likely to emerge tonight after a check on the nest today so we took a mat, sat next to the nest, and waited.

Other volunteers were sitting at the centre of Chagar Hutang beach, which overlooked the entire bay, waiting for mother turtle to come ashore to nest. Located at the northern part of Redang Island, Chagar Hutang is a nesting site for green and hawksbill turtles. Torchlight was prohibited in case it discouraged mother turtles from coming ashore.

Still, the four of us could see each other’s silhouette clearly with a half moon up. I cleared all the broken branches and leaves surrounding the nest so we would know for sure the black spot on the sand was a hatchling’s head when it emerged.

Nine forty. I spotted a small moving black spot at the centre of the nest.

“Look!” I whispered. The rest leaned forward. We all held our breath in anticipation.

Something was crawling out. A few seconds later, it was out. We could recognise the shape of the baby turtle with its tiny shell and flippers.

Once it was out, it crawled forward with a burst of speed. There was a small slope immediately in front of its nest and “swoosh”, the little one went sliding down the slope. Unperturbed, the baby turtle continued to push forward towards the sea. One of us went to alert the other volunteers.

Back at the nest, more baby turtles were emerging from the nest. Ten, twenty, thirty…I lost count. The hatchlings marched towards the sea in a flurry under the moonlight.

A few got lost in the bushes and a volunteer used his flashlight to guide them out. They always follow the light. It was not uncommon to find them crawling into the kitchen when someone forgot to switch the light off.

Ten to 15 minutes later, the last hatchling was out. We followed the little fellow as it scrambled forward to catch up with its siblings. Ocean waves rushed up to greet it and a few seconds later, it was swept into the open sea.

A few days later when the staff excavated the green turtle nest, 106 empty eggshells were counted.

(Marine biologists estimate that only one out of 1,000 hatchlings will survive the rough sea and human threats to reach maturity.)

The plastic menace

Originally published at The Nut Graph http://www.thenutgraph.com/the-plastic-menace/

As If Earth Matters by Gan Pei Ling | 20 July 2010 | Read [9] Comments
 

“IT’s not sexy, that’s why nobody cares,” a friend comments on why few Malaysians are concerned about the problem of plastic waste even though it threatens the environment that sustains us. “It’s sexier to talk about renewable energy and green buildings than how we handle our trash,” the friend adds.

That is until some of our state and local governments took the initiative to launch No Plastic Bag Day campaigns. Penang was the first to launch the campaign in July 2009. Those without reusable bags have to pay 20 sen for a plastic bag when they shop on Mondays. In January 2010, the campaign was extended to include Tuesdays and Wednesdays. At the same time, Selangor launched its own No Plastic Bag Day campaign on Saturdays. Subsequently, the Miri and Sibu municipal councils in Sarawak, as well as Kota Kinabalu city hall and six other districts in Sabah announced similar campaigns.

How effective are these campaigns? Can they really help save the planet? And what can be done to make these campaigns more popular?

Campaigns’ effectiveness

The idea of banning plastic bags to reduce its use is not new. In 2002, Ireland imposed a 15 euro cent tax on plastic bags, and its use dropped over 90% within five months. In the same year, Bangladesh banned polyethylene bags in Dhaka as the bags were choking the drainage system and causing floods in the capital.

China banned plastic bags in 2008. A year later, it was reported that the country saved the equivalent of 1.6 million tonnes of oil and 40 billion bags. Other countries that have introduced additional charges or tax on plastic bags include Rwanda, Eritrea and Switzerland.

In Selangor, the use of plastic bags was reduced by five million in the first four months of its campaign. In Penang, the amount was one million bags over the same period.

(Pic by roberto / sxc.hu)

Despite such reductions in plastic bag use, Ireland’s scheme has been criticised for triggering a 400% increase in the purchase of bin liners and greater reliance on paper bags. Contrary to the popular belief that paper bags are more eco-friendly, they actually require more energy to manufacture and cause more pollution during production. This probably explains why Penang and Selangor did not compel or encourage retailers to replace plastic with paper bags.

Convincing the public

Asking consumers to sacrifice requires some doing, especially when Malaysians are so used to free plastic bags that some consumers mistake it as a “right”. Some consumer associations, for example, claimed that the 20 sen charge was decided without their consultation and was therefore unfair.

Perhaps as a public relations measure to help consumers make the switch, Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng announced that the state would use the funds collected from the plastic bag charges to eradicate hardcore poverty.

In Selangor, participating retailers are required to use the funds to conduct corporate social responsibility programmes. The Selangor government encourages these retailers to conduct programmes relating to the environment.

Perhaps one other way to compel consumers to change their lifestyle is to lead them to the Pacific Garbage Patch that stretches several hundred miles in the Pacific Ocean. The Pacific Garbage Patch is the largest of five plastic garbage patches in our oceans. For now, there is no way to clean up these garbage patches, scientists say.

As a result of our consumption and disposal of plastic, scientists estimate there are six times more plastic than plankton in the “continent”. Trapped by circulating ocean currents, the plastic we throw away are choking fishes and seabirds to death as the marine animals mistake them for food. Every year, more than 100,000 marine animals such as dolphins, whales and sea turtles are killed because of plastic bags.

Plastic waste found on the beach in Kuantan (Pic by Carolyn Lau and Ng Sek San)

If we don’t care about marine life, here’s another thought that should give us pause. Plastics absorb pollutants like polychlorinated biphenyls, otherwise known as cancer-causing PCBs, and pesticides.

“These particles are ingested by marine life and pass into our food chain. We all do it: we throw this stuff, this packaging, what I call dumb plastic, into the bin, and we think it has gone. But it comes back to us one way or another. Some of it ends up on our dinner plates,” British adventurer and environmentalist David de Rothschild tells The Guardian.

In 2009, Rothschild sailed to the patch in a vessel made entirely of plastics called Plastiki. The billionaire banking heir has definitely found a way to make the issue of plastic waste seem sexier.

Considering some of the gruesome facts surrounding plastic bags pollution, 20 sen per bag is a really small price to pay.

Other solutions

The Malaysian Plastic Manufacturers Association has proposed to the Penang government to give out free oxo-biodegradable plastic bags so that consumers can still enjoy free plastic bags on campaign days.

However, oxo-biodegradable plastic bags are not 100% degradable. They can only degrade in the presence of sunlight and oxygen. Those that end up in landfills would not degrade at all. Therefore, reusable bags are still the best option.

For certain, most of our plastic waste comes from packaging that is often unnecessary. Malaysian consumers cannot hope to rely solely on governments to resolve our plastic waste problem. After all, in a marketplace driven by profit, consumer demand and lifestyle are often much more powerful than government regulations.

As Leo Hickman writes in The Guardian on 11 Aug 2009: “[Plastic bags] are the ultimate symbol of our throwaway culture.”

No Plastic Bag Day campaigns are merely the first step towards stimulating the public to rethink the impact of our “use and throw” habit on the very environment that sustains us.

Gan Pei Ling believes reusable bags are the best solution to our plastic bag dilemma, but would like to remind readers to wash their reusable bags frequently in the interest of hygiene.

Going nuclear: Convincing the public

Originally published at The Nut Graph http://www.thenutgraph.com/going-nuclear-convincing-the-public/

As If Earth Matters by Gan Pei Ling | 30 June 2010 | Read [14] Comments | 

(Pic by merlin1075 / sxc.hu)

MALAYSIA’s first nuclear power plant is expected to be up and running by 2021.That’s just one decade away. Public concerns have already been expressed about the astronomical start-up costs, safety, and radioactive waste management of having such a nuclear plant. In response, Energy, Green Technology, and Water Minister Datuk Seri Peter Chin told Parliament on 7 June 2010 that the government would be conducting road shows to educate the public.

Additionally, Tenaga Nasional Bhd (TNB) has begun branding nuclear energy as “green” energy. It seems the government is bent on going nuclear so that we don’t lose out to our neighbours. For certain, there is big business involved. South Korea, France, and other foreign nuclear industries are already eyeing to tap into Malaysia’s new multibillion-ringgit nuclear market.

Still, the government must allay serious and legitimate fears about nuclear power. It cannot expect that there will not be public protests unless these fears are convincingly addressed.

Not alone

Malaysia is not alone in wanting to pursue nuclear power. Asean countries began flirting with the idea of harnessing nuclear energy for electricity generation around the 1960s.

The Philippines was the first to build a nuclear power plant in 1976. However, the project became a white elephant after the plant was found to be unsafe as it was constructed near major earthquake fault lines.
Since then, other Asean countries have announced plans to go nuclear due to rising fossil fuel prices. In 2007, Myanmar signed a deal with Russia to build its first research reactor, while Thailand declared that its first nuclear power plant would be operational by 2020. In late June 2010, Vietnam announced it would be building eight nuclear power plants in the next 20 years.

Others like Cambodia and Singapore have also indicated keen interest.

Show us the plan

Since the Malaysian government is so determined to play catch-up with our neighbours, here are some steps it can take to convince the Malaysian public that nuclear is indeed a safe, clean, and affordable energy option.

1. Where’s Malaysia’s radioactive waste management plan?

The government has identified potential sites in Pahang, Johor and Terengganu to build the plant. But it has yet to make public what it plans to do with the radioactive waste generated.

 

 (Pic by flaivoloka / sxc.hu)

Will we be shipping our radioactive waste to France to be reprocessed or are we storing it in our own country? If we are shipping it half a globe away to be reprocessed, what measures are the government taking against terrorist attacks? Plutonium, which will be among the radioactive waste generated, is commonly used to make atomic bombs.

If we are storing it in Malaysia, where will it be stored? I imagine Pakatan Rakyat-led states would be among the first to say no. Will other states be willing to offer their states as a dumping ground? After all, even for the Broga incinerator project, there was so much public protest that in the end, the project was cancelled.

2. What’s Malaysia’s emergency plans?

For all they want, the nuclear industry can boost their safety record after the tragedies of Three Mile Island in 1979 and Chernobyl in 1986. But the truth is, the industry has continued to be plagued by other accidents and radioactive leaks during the past few decades.

What will the Malaysian government do in the event of a radioactive leak, fire, floods, or in the worst case scenario, a nuclear meltdown? What are the emergency plans that will be put in place? Show us you are prepared to deal with potential natural and human-caused disasters.

3. Give us financial security.

The nuclear industry is also notorious for cost overruns and construction delays. The latest example would be the new generation reactor in Finland, which was supposed to be completed last year. Its price tag has increased almost 50% to €4.2 billion due to safety issues in its design.

What steps are the government taking to ensure that Malaysia’s nuclear reactor will not go down the same path as Finland’s reactor? Who will foot the bill if we do? Surely the government does not expect to use taxpayers’ money to bail out the project if it goes beyond its original budget of between RM6 billion and RM13 billion. Perhaps the current ministers, TNB’s directors, and any other party that is so determined to push for nuclear energy to satisfy Malaysians’ “surging energy demand” can offer to fork out their own money.

The truth is…

Radioactive waste from nuclear energy will likely outlive human civilisation. That’s why, without a viable waste management plan, it is irresponsible to set up nuclear reactors. Even developed countries like Germany, which depend significantly on nuclear for its energy, have yet to figure out where to store their waste permanently.

Indeed, high-level waste generated from a reactor has to be stored in steel containers that must also last beyond human life. If the government were to be entrepreneurial, it could of course sell eternity ad spaces on these steel containers for a nifty sum. That would help reduce the government’s deficit for certain. But it would still not address the legitimate fears people have about nuclear waste. 

And lest the government forget how critical public support is, Indonesia had to postpone its plan to build nuclear power plants indefinitely, partly due to public protest. Its president, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, said on 19 June 2010 that the country would instead focus on developing renewable energy such as geothermal, wind, solar and biofuels.

For now, the Malaysian government doesn’t actually have a plan that addresses the safety issues of nuclear energy. And for so long as it doesn’t, it cannot hope that road shows alone will convince the public.

Gan Pei Ling believes in renewable, instead of, nuclear energy. She is a member of NukeOff, a Malaysian youth group that questions the government rationale of going nuclear. Her column, As If Earth Matters, will be a fortnightly offering on The Nut Graph.

Related post:
“No solution to nuclear waste”

Misleading NST article on proposed Sabah coal plant

(I know NSTP group is linked to UMNO, still, that shouldn't have stopped them from at least trying to be fair, accurate, and balanced in their reporting. I was really upset reading their misleading article that implied that it is okay for the government to build the proposed coal plant in east coast Sabah, so I shot a letter at the reporter and editor, regardless of the fact that it will be published or not.)

Dear Sean & NST editor,

I'm extremely troubled by your article "Heeding carbon pledge" published on 26 May 2010 that alleged that the proposed coal plant in Sabah will not affect Malaysia's pledge to reduce its emission intensity by 40% by 2020.

The article quoted an NRE officer Dr Lian Kok Fei claiming that Malaysia could reduce its carbon emission by adopting Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) technology. However, even Dr Lian himself admitted in paragraph 10 of the article that transfer of this new technology is not possible under the current deadlock of the global climate negotiations at the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Therefore, it is truly misleading and problematic for your article to even remotely implied that the proposed plant at Sabah could utilise the CCS technology to reduce its carbon emission when this technology is extremely unlikely to be make available to Malaysia when the proposed plant is built.

It is the media's responsibility to always remain fair, accurate, and balanced. Your article above is far from accurate or balanced. If you had interview Gurmit Singh from CETDEM or other environmental NGOs, they could have rebutted Dr Lian's problematic claim immediately.

Additionally, the proposal to build a coal plant in east coast Sabah has been rejected twice by the Sabah government and Sabah people. The building of a coal plant at the current proposed site will also endanger one of most pristine coastlines of the country, including the Coral Triangle which contains 75% of the world's coral species, Tun Sakaran Marine Park, as well as the Tabin wildlife reserve. These facts were glaringly missing from your article, which would mislead readers who do not know better to think that there is nothing wrong in building the proposed coal plant.

Instead of proposing to construct a coal plant again, the federal government should fix the long delayed Southern Grip soonest possible to stabilise electricity supply from west coast to east coast Sabah. In addition, if Sabah's substantial potential for biomass as well as Tawau's potential for geothermal were well-utilised, there should be no need for a coal plant to be built!

Many of my Sabahan friends were upset reading your article. I hope NST would be more careful and balanced in its future publications. Your articles help to dictate public discourse and inform public opinion, so please be mindful of your influence.

Yours truly
Pei Ling

p/s: I think partly why I'm so upset is because this demonstrates what happens when journalists and editors ignore public interest due to their political ownership or pure ignorance...Personally, I think it's unforgivable, I would never allow myself to write or publish such misleading and irresponsible article. I give you permission to whack me if I ever allow myself to sink so low.

Tell Najib and Peter Chin that you don't want nuclear in our country

Hello friends!

Our dear Energy, "Green Tech" & Water Minister Datuk Seri Peter Chin has recently announced that Malaysia is going to build a nuclear power plant. He argued that Malaysia can't keep on relying on fossil fuel aka coal and gas which will run out in due time. He also noted that the energy demand in Malaysia will continue to surge with our increasing population (and consumption rate). So, he said the government has no choice but to go nuclear.

I'm glad our govt realised that we can't keep burning fossil fuel to produce energy, but I don't think nuclear is as "clean" as he pronounced, nor it is a renewable energy source. Do TNB even has a concrete waste management plan? Where are they going to store the nuclear waste (since it will continue to exist for the next hundreds of thousands of years)? Where do they plan to build the power plant? Will they make sure this time nothing leaks? Why isn't the government spending as much money to promote solar energy?...

I'm outraged that the govt didn't even consult the public before deciding to go ahead with the plan. I've a hundred questions to ask them before I'll agree to their plan. Well, Najib said the govt will listen to what ordinary Malaysians have to say in this matter. They are apparently collecting public feedback through his 1Malaysia blog (http://www.1malaysia.com.my/7313-renewable-energy) and Peter Chin's blog (http://peterchin.my/?p=839).

I don't know if my small little comment will count, but I'll definitely give them a piece of my mind. If you are against nuclear as well, this is an appeal to you to tell them your stand. Please forward this appeal to your friends or network who might be against nuclear as well.

Honestly, they should at least hold a public consultation so that the Malaysian public will know the risks and costs involved!

You nuke, I leave!
Pei Ling

NukeOff! (Belia Tanpa Nuklear)
Google group: http://groups.google.com/group/nuke-off
Twitter: www.twitter.com/nukeOff
Facebook: www.facebook.com/pages/Nuke-Off-Belia-Tanpa-Nuklear/119962308028843
Subscribe to the following SMS update for the latest news on our movement.
Type: JoinNukeOff<space>your name and send it to 016-3050973

Principles of good climate change coverage

1. Do not conflate science and policy.
They are separate things. Science informs policy-making but it does not dictate what policies should be chosen. If a climate activist tells you that the latest research on the risk of dangerous impacts shows that the U.S. Senate must pass cap-and-trade legislation, know that scientific research can do no such thing. What it may be able to show, however, is this: If steps are not taken to prevent global average temperature from rising more than a certain amount, the risk of dangerous impacts will increase substantially. That statement does require that action be taken. Different people may reach different conclusions, depending on what they value.

2. Never refer to “the global warming debate,” or the “climate change debate” and never write that the “debate is settled.”

There is no single debate; there are separate debates within science, within policy and within economics, and about how scientific findings should guide policy. By conflating the two, you mislead your audience into thinking that nothing is settled. So, which debate are you talking about? Be specific. If you find yourself writing something like this, you are probably referring to the big attribution question: Are humans causing global warming? Yes, we are. That’s settled. But the policy debates certainly are not.

3. Keep in mind that some big debates in climate science have long been settled even though others have not.

Despite what a small handful of skeptics with credible expertise in climate science say, the big, overarching “attribution” issue is as settled as things get in science: The planet is warming and humans are largely responsible. Moreover, this is already causing myriad impacts such as melting of glaciers and ice sheets. That is not to say that new, contradictory evidence will never come along. Science is always subject to revision. But the idea that humans are causing climate change is not scientifically controversial, period.

4. Do not treat different environmental processes as one.

Doing this often highlights debate where in fact there may be significant consensus. For example, scientists may agree that significant melting of ice in Greenland is occurring. But whether melting is occurring is actually a different — if related — question than how long it might take for sea levels to rise to a point that would threaten major cities. Be very clear what process you are talking about in your coverage, and make sure to accurately describe the status of scientific knowledge in that particular field.

5. Don’t get stuck in “global warming: yes or no?” coverage.

Opponents of action on climate change want to keep it stuck there, but it is not your job to oblige them. It is your job to go where the story is heading. And much of the debate that is relevant to your audience is now centered around policy — what should we do, if anything, about climate change?

• Although there are still many scientific questions to be answered, the center of gravity of the climate change story has shifted to policy. And remember that policy action can proceed even though significant scientific uncertainties remain.
• Along these lines, keep in mind this quote from the late statistician Lincoln Moses: “There are no facts about the future.” And even though that is true, in countless realms of human endeavor we routinely make decisions about the future. For example, governments routinely make immensely consequential decisions about fiscal policy under great uncertainty. And there is no reason why climate change should be any different.

6. Avoid being a stenographer or playing judge and jury; be a referee.

Don’t simply balance opposing claims (in either science or policy) with comments from dueling experts. And if you are not a columnist or blogger, don’t simply pass judgment on who is right and wrong. Be a referee who subjects conflicting claims to independent scrutiny. Examine the evidence — in the form of primary literature, such as scientific papers and reports. And enlist the help of impartial experts who can help you put claim from partisans wielding conflicting results and opinions into proper perspective. Your goal is to help your audience weigh the merits of these varying positions, and to alert them when one side in a debate is cherry picking the data, or exaggerating, or committing other kinds of fouls (like making stuff up!).

7. Understand and distinguish between legitimate analyses and what Eric Pooley calls “weapons of mass persuasion.”

We certainly need to tell our audiences what the persuaders are trying to accomplish, whether they are trying to speed or derail action on climate change. They are part of the policy-making process, and so they must be part of our coverage. But we should not conflate what they say in the public square with rigorous, peer-reviewed research. When partisans present information that they claim is scientific, scrutinize it. Did a recognized expert in the field conduct the research? Where did the funding come from? (A study funded by ExxonMobil may not be as credible as one funded by, say, the U.S. National Science Foundation.) Was it published in a peer-reviewed publication? If so, what has other research in this field turned up? And what do impartial experts have to say?

8. Similarly, quote experts with credible authority to speak on your topic.

When you need someone to help you analyze the latest science on, say, melting glaciers, don’t quote a meteorologist — even if that meteorologist has a popular blog and has written copiously about his views on global warming. For that matter, don’t quote an activist or even a policy expert about the particulars of the science. Find a glaciologist who has a track record of conducting research in this area, who publishes in the peer-reviewed literature, and who has had a recognized impact on contributing new knowledge to this field. For example, an IPCC lead author, or if you need to localize the story, a glaciologist at a university in your town who has been actively engaged in peer-reviewed research in this field.

That being said, a policy expert might be a good choice if you need to put the latest science into a broader context — for example, what might new research on melting ice sheets have to contribute to the policy process?

Similarly, when you need someone to help you report on the latest economic analysis of climate policy, your best choice may not be a fervid blogger, however well-known, whose main motivation is to push for one policy action over another.

9. Remember that mitigation of climate change through cap-and-trade, a carbon tax or similar policies is by no means the only possible response — and certainly not the only thing you can cover. Many untold and important stories can be found in other areas.

• Energy efficiency and production technology: Without new technologies for increasing efficiency and producing non-carbon energy, mitigation will fail. This is one area in which there is significant agreement among otherwise conflicting stakeholders. What efforts are being made where you live to boost efficiency and adoption of alternative energy? Are there companies near you who are working on these technologies? Is local government involved in some way? What are citizens doing?
• Reducing deforestation: Cutting and burning of forests is responsible for about 20 percent of human greenhouse gas emissions. That means it's unlikely that we'll be able to tame global warming without coming to grips with this problem. In your coverage, don't forget this critically important aspect of climate change. And also keep in mind that it may be quite easy for you to find a local angle, since deforestation is a problem in many parts of the world.
• Carbon capture and storage technology: There may not be a way to localize this story where you live, but it is still worth remembering that this approach may be gaining momentum.
• Adaptation: Climate impacts are already turning up, and no matter what mitigation policies we adopt now, more are inevitable. So how should societies be adapting? This is one area that should be easy to localize. For example, how can drought-prone areas fortify against impacts from climate change? How much room is there for significant conservation? Is it possible to build new reservoirs?
• Geo-engineering: Increasingly, climate experts are telling journalists (sometimes off the record) that deliberate efforts to cool the climate will likely be a last resort if carbon emissions aren’t reduced.
• Ethics: How do we resolve the divide between rich and poor nations over climate change? What historical responsibilities do rich countries have for helping poor nations deal with climate impacts? What responsibilities do all of us share for protecting other species and future generations from climate change? A rich array of stories are waiting to be told in this area.

10. Never forget that the climate change story is ultimately about people, so make sure to humanize your stories.

It’s not about saving the planet. Earth has suffered mind-boggling episodes of climate change in the past, not to mention asteroid impacts that wiped out more than 90 percent of all the species on the planet. Yet Earth survived. Do not lose sight of the fact that first and foremost, climate change has the potential to cause a great deal of human conflict and suffering. And that means the good, old-fashioned journalistic practice of humanizing stories with compelling characters is essential.

Source: