Category: Environment

Categories
Environment Science & technology

[905] Of mature forest produces zero net oxygen

So, some Indonesian official has suggested that Malaysia should pay for the oxygen that Indonesia “export” to Malaysia. It’s one of the same nonsensical remarks Indonesia gave last year instead of actually working with others to fight the fire that causes the haze. Well, I want to offer some scientific fact to that Indonesian official.

Mature forest is oxygen neutral. The Indonesian rainforest as well as Malaysia’s consume oxygen through respiration as much as it produces oxygen through photosysthesis. That basically means mature forest produces zero net oxygen.

Only growing forest produces positive net oxygen; in general, Southeast Asia has mature forest.

Given the net zero, if Indonesia exports oxygen, then Indonesia has to import oxygen in order to balance out its “account”. Therefore, if Indonesia wants to internalize the public good (oxygen) and demands Malaysia pays for the oxygen we allegedly get from Indonesian rainforest, the Indonesia must pay for oxygen they get from Malaysian rainforest.

For further reading on zero net oxygen, please read an article at Wikipedia. In particular, Wikipedia cited Wallace S. Broecker of Columbia. Also, for some math, see oxygen cycle at Wikipedia.

So dear sir, you may want to learn a bit of undergraduate biology (frankly, it’s just general knowledge) before making any statement with too much cheekiness.

Categories
ASEAN Environment

[903] Of Indonesia promised no haze back in May

Yes, they did. And I have proof:

Indonesia promises this year will be less hazy

Sat May 27, 11:36 PM ET

KUALA LUMPUR (AFP) – Indonesia has said the choking haze that annually blankets parts of Southeast Asia will be reduced this year as it cracks down on oil palm plantations that clear land by burning.

Indonesia’s Agriculture Minister Anton Apriyantono said authorities would enforce a 2004 law that imposes stiff penalties on plantations that burn land, a practice largely blamed for contributing to the haze.

How cheap words are. I was right to be skeptical.

Categories
ASEAN Environment

[901] Of demanding Indonesia to ratify the Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution

Last year, I blogged about how Indonesia hasn’t ratified the ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution. I really believe Malaysia and others countries that are affected by this current major environmental disaster should press on Indonesia to ratify the agreement immediately. However, our government is too busy regulating language and moral while stiffling freedom instead of ensuring our well-being.

Given the inability of our government to prioritize its priorities — given the current administration’s failure to protect our interest, our health, our environment — I call on all environmental conscious Malaysians to not to vote for Barisan Nasional in the next election. The next time you’re at the ballot box, remember this haze. Remember how ineffective this administration is in solving this problem.

I’ve already said the haze will return this year despite all the Badawi administration said. This environmental degradation will happen every year unless we stand up against Indonesia and say no more. We need to arrest this issue at its root cause. All the cloud seeding does not permanently solve our problem. We need to insist Indonesia to ratify the Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution. From there on, more meaningful cooperation between Malaysia, Indonesia and other ASEAN countries could be forged.

While our government is failing us, I’m happy to spread the word that Greenpeace is fighting for us:

Greenpeace activists literally smoked out the forestry ministry in Jakarta on Thursday to protest the government’s failure to stop forest fires. The blazes have spread choking smog over much of Southeast Asia, threatening the health of millions.

Over the past week, thick smoke from fires in Sumatra and Central Kalimantan has affected Singapore and Malaysia.

Greenpeace Southeast Asia has more pictures at their website.

Some may point out that it’s the Malaysian plantation firms operating in Indonesia that are causing this. The counter-punch hasn’t changed; Malaysia doesn’t have the authority to exercise its environmental laws on Indonesian soil.

Regardless, I strongly believe the Malaysian government should formulate a law that could somehow punish this Malaysian firms for causing this environmental degradation. The law must internalize this negative externalities. I do however see the difficulty in legislating such law. This is why an ASEAN Parliament is so important; such supranational could enforce environmental laws through out ASEAN.
Hey DAP, are you organizing another protest in front of the Indonesian embassy? I’ll join you guys again if it’s going to be held on weekends.

Categories
Environment Politics & government

[899] Of Tories are green

I first noticed David Cameron when he took over the UK Tories’ leadership last year from Michael Howard. First of all, I’ve always liked Blair; charming, young and best of all, green. That doesn’t necessarily translate into support for the Labor Party though. (Okay, okay, Labour. Happy now?) I don’t know enough of British politics to choose side but Blair’s personality and his green tendency is strong enough for me tip my hat to the Labour Party. However, Blair’s possible successor, Gordon Brown isn’t as fun as Blair himself. And Brown seems a little bit closer to the red side as far as I’m concerned. Cameron on the other hand, while coming from a conservative, is green. With a green leadership, the Tories are starting to suit me. It’s a sort of a green-blue party. I consider myself as a libertarian green and hence, it’s only natural for me to be attracted to the new Tories.

Nevertheless, there are accusations that David Cameron is doing a Kerry – trying to impress too many people at once. New stuff is also coming out about him; despite earlier the media hailing him for cycling to the Houses, that cycling activity is apparently a gimmick. I really hope hypocrisy isn’t the case. Reason is, if Cameron’s really sincere, this is something good for the green. Why? Simple. When was the last time two major parties in a country with great global influence last tried to be greener than the other?

From the top of my head and from my limited knowledge, I can’t think of any.

And certainly, Malaysia comes nowhere near such scenario despite the Badawi administration’s initial green slogans. Like so many of the administration efforts, his green effort is starting to look like greenwashing.

Coming back to the main issue, usually, it’s the race to the center. But perhaps, this race towards the green is really a race to the center. Maybe — for those in the UK, correct me if I’m wrong — environmental issue is a centrist’s issue in the UK. If that is so, what a wonderful place the UK is right now.

Of course, the unfortunate part is that both the Labour and the Tories support the invasion of Iraq. Another thing is that, the Tories are Euroskeptics. I’m pro-EU simply because I’m for a more integrated ASEAN. I see a successful EU as a brownie point for those that are for a stronger ASEAN.

Still, whichever side wins next year, I’m happy to speculate that the UK would be green.

Categories
Environment

[897] Of dear Ministry of Agriculture

Or whatever they call you nowadays,

I wish to direct your attention to your recent temporary ban lift on paraquat .

In an article by M. Krishnamoorthy in The Star on Tuesday, October 3 2006, you state the reason the ban is being lifted is to conduct a cost and benefit analysis on the usage of paraquat:

KUALA LUMPUR: The ban on the herbicide paraquat will be temporarily lifted from Nov 1, to allow a comprehensive study on its many uses.

The Pesticide Control Division under the then Agriculture Ministry banned the weedkiller for its hazardous effect on health in August 2002.

The decision to temporarily lift the ban by the Agriculture and Agro-based Industry Ministry now was made following appeals from farmers and manufacturers to look at the greater uses of the herbicide.

“We want to do an extensive study on paraquat, its harmful effects and positive aspects, before the set date for its total ban in November next year,” Pesticide Control Division director Nursiah Tajul Arus told The Star.

After reading the article, I’m a little dumbfounded. I’m neither a farmer nor a scientist that specializes in herbicide. Neither am I too sure if I’ve actually seen a bottle of paraquat. So pardon the state of mind I’m currently in. Nevertheless, I do know through my readings that paraquat is a very strong poison. It’s potentially dangerous if safety guidelines aren’t followed to the letter. Despite that, I’m not totally against the usage of paraquat. In fact, I’m not even sure if I’m actually objecting to the use of that herbicide. What disturbs me is the reasoning you offer. It doesn’t make sense. Moreover, if that’s your policy on how to conduct experiment, it’s a bad practice.

If you want to commission a comprehensive study on the effects of paraquat usage, couldn’t you just study it a laboratory instead of lifting the ban nationwide? With the lift of the ban for the sake of conducting a study, you’re turning the country into a guinea pig. Worse, that descision potentially expose many plantation workers in harm’s way. If you really need to test paraquat out in the open air, you could just find a farm or two and conduct experiments there. The country isn’t a one big laboratory owned exclusively by you.

Perhaps, you have never heard a concept called “precautionary principle“. I’m a green and so, I’m familiar with it. I embrace it though from time to time, I do take too much risk that I’m supposed too. But I’m digressing. The point I’m trying to convey here is that you should be familiar with the concept, given that you get to play with many dangerous species of chemicals that could potentially affect million if used widely unwisely.

I don’t mind if you like to play around with chemicals. Hey, when I was a student at a high school (even as an undergraduate at Michigan), I love chemicals! At Michigan, there are a number of small chambers where I as a freshman handled hazardous fume; I didn’t handle hazardous chemical outside of the chamber. It wouldn’t be safe to me or anybody that might be around during that experiment.

Do you have the same chamber in your laboratory? I hope you do. If you don’t, perhaps you could ask some cash from the Malaysian astronaut program and build that chamber for your use. In fact, you could do your experiment in that chamber!

With the chamber, if something bad accidentally happened, at least it would be limited in that chamber. The country isn’t a guinea pig; please be responsible. Please limit your little science project to your laboratories.

With all this in mind, I suspect your intention to temporarily lift that ban has nothing to do with cost and benefit analysis. I suspect the lift is a little less than sincere. The basis of the suspicion is simple; with the temporary nationwide lift of the ban for the sake of conducting a cost and benefit analysis, entities that are calling for the legalization of paraquat usage get to use the chemical freely. On one hand, the study could be conducted at some confined place. That strikes as a bit odd, don’t you think so, especially the analysis could easily be done in a lab, thus migitating lots of risk?

Sorry if I sound redundant but I’m not supporting the ban at the moment. As a matter of fact, I’m pretty much a free market kind of guy and most often than not, I’d support the use of paraquat and disagree with bans. Accounting full cost accounting practice, I might be okay with heavily regulated use, even. So, you could say, all I’m questioning is your sincerity of the lifting of the ban.

Regards.