Technical report _ Draft 1

Background 

This report responds to a call for proposals to recommend solutions to specific problems in a particular area of focus. The team decided to work on plastic waste management in Singapore, focusing on the beverages’ packaging waste.

Single-use plastics are a popular choice amongst consumers due to its advantages such as low cost and convenience. With higher demand, there will be a surge in plastic production. According to the World Economic Forum (WEF), plastic production around the world saw a dramatic increase from 15 million tonnes in 1964 to 311 million tonnes in 2014. The number is expected to double again over the next 20 years. 

With ever-increasing plastic being produced, this implies that plastic waste will also rise. As a significant amount of plastic waste is being produced, it is crucial on how effectively it can be managed as plastic is a type of material that is difficult to biodegrade, which will result in it lasting a long time in this world. 

Due to the long lifespan of plastics, those that are not properly disposed of will cause a variety of problems. One of the problems would be water pollution. When plastics break down into microplastic, it enters the food cycle of sea creatures causing harm to the marine biodiversity. Also, it releases toxic chemicals into the environment and can make their way into our food and water resources.

Last year, Sriring, O. (2018) published an article about a pilot whale that died due to 80 pieces of rubbish pieces found in its stomach has garnered global attention. This owes to the fact that there is plastic pollution in the ocean. According to the UN Environment Programme(2017), every year about 4.8 to 12.7 million tonnes of plastic are dumped in the ocean. Singapore contributes to plastic pollution in the ocean through its high usage of plastics in the country.  According to a study by the Singapore Environment Council (2018), Singaporeans use at least 1.76 billion plastics such as bottles, bags and other disposable items yearly, in which only less than 20% are recycled. The remaining are discarded, burnt or to be transported to landfills.

This is an issue to a city like Singapore, as the majority of Singapore’s non-recyclable waste; plastic is incinerated and shipped to a man-made island nearby, called Semakau island. Geddie, J. (2018) reported that Semakau Island, Singapore’s only landfill, is expected to be filled up by 2035, 15 years from now. Originally, it was expected to last till 2045 however, due to the amount of waste generated that has increased over the years, the projected lifespan of the landfill was shortened. 

This is crucial as Singapore faces land scarcity and is vulnerable to situations like this, thus we should play a part and contribute more to protect the environment. Initiatives must be taken to reduce plastic production and consumption to provide a better future for the next generation.

Many developed cities around the world had imposed certain types of disposable plastic ban. Singapore can similarly protect the environment by reducing unnecessary plastic consumption in the form of bottles and beverage packaging.

1.1 Current solutions in Singapore

Incineration was introduced in Singapore in the form of Waste-to-energy (WTE) plants. Currently, incineration helps prolong the lifespan of the landfill by reducing the amount of volume of waste. According to the Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources (MEWR), incineration of plastic can reduce the total volume from 100% to 10%. But it is not a viable long term solution as the burning of plastic will release fumes that are hazardous to the environment. Without incineration of this non-biodegradable material, it would stay around for generations. 

In 2007, the National Environment Agency (NEA) had started the Singapore Packing Agreement. In this voluntary agreement, NEA and operators worked together to reduce “packaging wastage” from innovative design, efficient manufacturing and encouraged “reuse or recycling of packaging materials”. According to NEA (2019), under the second SPA’s duration, businesses have reduced the total amount of 54,000 tonnes of packaging waste.

ZeroWaste SG (2018) has also published a guide to encourage food and beverage (F&B) operators to reduce plastic usage. In this guide, auditors issued a rating for popular F&B operators based on efforts in reducing plastic usage, persuade consumers to adopt a Bring Your Own (BYO) culture and suggest other things for them to contribute more. The results published in this guide show that the majority of F&B operators are open to the concept of a BYO culture.

The ideal situation would be for beverage shops under the Singapore Food Agency(SFA), should not use plastic cups for their drinks. The SFA should include regulations for the shops to omit plastic for their cups, straws, and carriers. 

1.2 Problem statement

The amount of plastic waste contributed by beverages is high due to the extensive amount of usage of single-use plastics. This poses a threat to a rise in plastic pollution in the ocean which would, in turn, contribute to climate change.

1.3 Purpose statement

The purpose of this proposal is to suggest solutions to reduce plastic usage from beverage stalls in Singapore.

References:

Geddie, J. (2018, June 08) In Singapore, where trash becomes ash, plastics are still a problem.

Retrieved October 28, 2019, from

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-singapore-waste/in-singapore-where-trash-becomes-ash-plastics-are-still-a-problem-idUSKCN1J20HX

Lacy, P., Spindler, W., McAndrew, C.(2019, January 25) Plastic is a global problem. It’s also a global opportunity. World Economic Forum.

Retrieved October 28, 2019, from 

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/01/plastic-might-just-be-the-solution-to-its-own-problem/

Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources (MEWR). (n.d.). Incineration.

Retrieved October 28, 2019, from

https://www.mewr.gov.sg/topic/incineration

National Environment Agency. (n.d.) Singapore Packaging Agreement. 

Retrieved October 28, 2019, from 

https://www.nea.gov.sg/programmes-grants/schemes/singapore-packaging-agreement

Singapore Environment Council. (2018, August). Consumer Plastic and Plastic Resource Ecosystem in Singapore.

Retrieved October 28, 2019, from

http://sec.org.sg/seaa/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/DT_PlasticResourceResearch_29Aug_FinalPrint.pdf

Sriring, O. (2018, June 3) Plastic bags jam stomach of dead pilot whale in Thailand. 

Retrieved October 28, 2019, from 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-thailand-whale/plastic-bags-jam-stomach-of-dead-pilot-whale-in-thailand-idUSKCN1IZ08W

United Nations Environment Programme (2017, September). Towards a Pollution-Free Planet Background Report. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.

Retrieved October 28, 2019, from

http://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/21800/UNEA_towardspollution_long%20version_Web.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

ZeroWaste SG. (2018, October 22) Singapore’s First Guide For Rating F&B Retailers On Their Efforts To Reduce Plastic Disposables.

Retrieved October 28, 2019, from 

http://www.zerowastesg.com/2018/10/22/singapores-first-guide-for-rating-fb-retailers-on-their-efforts-to-reduce-plastic-disposables/

Draft #3 Summary_Reader Response: Cross Island

In the article “Nature Group seeks more information on the impact of Cross Island Line Site Investigations” Neo (2018) stated that crews of nature lovers are encouraging the public to voice out their concerns towards the Land Transport Authority (LTA) regarding the drilling works for the future Cross Island MRT line. The public is anticipating whether LTA would release the whole process of monitoring programs as “endangered” animals were spotted after site investigation was completed. The team of nature reserve doubts that LTA did a great job in the environmental impact assessment as the result was “mainly moderate” and was unwilling to provide comment nor evidence when asked. The crews also urged LTA to “provide assurance” and re-emphasize that monitoring program should continue even if the site investigation ends. They also highlighted that the monitoring methods and data are the keys to clear the doubts within the public as the information available was insufficient. Actions taken by the nature reserve group are understandable to a certain extent. However, LTA genuinely considered the nature reserve and is trying to provide the finest plan that benefits both the environment and the public in terms of economic and habitat losses. 

One major factor that LTA has been taking into consideration is the economic loss in terms of both the commuters and the residents that stay around the future construction area. In the article “Running under nature reserve the better option” Hoi (2019) stated that an additional of $2 billion in miscellaneous costs such as acquiring properties, engineering problems, and longer commute duration as compared to the direct alignment. In response to this statement, the government is paying more for a longer route which will directly affect the commuters as travel fare will increase as well. Also, residents around the construction area might face noise pollution and forced to shift house if skirting alignment is accepted. This will create many inconveniences for elderly residents around the area.

The second factor that plays a huge role in LTA’s decision is nature reserves in terms of habitat losses. LTA emphasized that they would continue with their efforts to minimize the environmental impacts that come along with the construction in the future. Moreover, Hoi (2019) also stated that impacts are only momentary and “nature will replenish the ecological footprints”. Phase 2 of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) which assesses the potential environmental impact of the construction and operations, as well as the mitigation measures, declare that all the constructions on land are located out of the Central Catchment Nature Reserve (CCNR). The report also stated that in terms of habitat, installations of fabricated crossing aids such as poles and rope bridges are designed to lend a hand for the endangered animals. At the same time, O’ Dempsey, an LTA independent reviewer of the phase 2 EIA stated that “From an ecology and biodiversity point of view, the two alignment options are comparable in terms of habitat loss. Both options result in the loss of nominally 3 hectares of regrowth forest.”

Even though LTA is currently in a tough position as they must appeal to both the commuters and the nature reserve group request, they are still welcoming the public to raise their concern towards this project. This has proven that the LTA is trying their best to please all parties and come out with the finest solution to cope with the economic and habitat losses.

Word Count: 567

References 

Land Transport Authority. (2019, September 2). Cross Island Line. Retrieved from https://www.lta.gov.sg/content/ltaweb/en/public-transport/projects/cross-island-line.html

Hoi, P. C. P. (2019, September 6). Running under nature reserve the better option. The Straits Time. Retrieved from https://www.straitstimes.com/forum/letters-in-print/running-under-nature-reserve-the-better-option

Neo, C. C. (2018, June 28). Nature group seeks more information on impact of Cross Island Line site investigations. Todayonline. Retrieved from https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/nature-group-seeks-more-information-impact-cross-island-line-site-investigations

Toh, T. W. (2019, September 3). Cross Island Line: Running under nature reserve or skirting it both feasible, says LTA. The Straits Time. Retrieved from https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/transport/cross-island-line-running-under-nature-reserve-or-skirting-it-both-feasible-says

Draft #2 Summary_Reader Response: Cross Island

In the article “Nature Group seeks more information on the impact of Cross Island Line Site Investigations” Neo (2018) stated that nature lovers are encouraging the public to voice out their concerns towards the Land Transport Authority (LTA) regarding the drilling works for the future Cross Island MRT line. The public is anticipating whether LTA would release the whole process of monitoring programs as “endangered” animals were spotted after site investigation was completed. They did doubt that LTA did a great job in the environmental impact assessment as the result was “mainly moderate” and was unwilling to provide comment nor evidence when asked. Nature lovers urge LTA to “provide assurance” and re-emphasize that monitoring program should continue even if the site investigation ends. They also highlighted that the monitoring methods and data are the keys to clear the doubts within the public as the information available was insufficient. Actions taken by the nature reserve group are understandable to a certain extent however, LTA did genuinely consider the nature reserve and is trying to provide the finest plan that benefits both the environment and public. 

A major factor that LTA has been taking into consideration is the public in terms of both the commuters and the residents that stay around the future construction area. In the article “Running under nature reserve the better option” Hoi (2019) stated that an additional of $2 billion in miscellaneous costs such as acquiring properties, engineering problems, and longer commute duration as compared to the direct alignment. In response to this statement, the government is paying more for a longer route which will directly affect the commuters as travel fare will increase as well. Also, residents around the construction area might face noise pollution and forced to shift house if skirting alignment is accepted. This will create many inconveniences for elderly residents around the area.

Another factor that plays a huge role in LTA’s decision is nature reserves. LTA did emphasize that they would continue with their efforts to minimize the environmental impacts that come along with the construction in the future. Moreover, Hoi (2019) also stated that impacts are only momentary and “nature will replenish the ecological footprints”. Phase 2 of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) which assesses the potential environmental impact of the construction and operations, as well as the mitigation measures, declare that all the constructions on land are located out of the Central Catchment Nature Reserve (CCNR). The report also stated that in terms of habitat, installations of fabricated crossing aid such as poles and rope bridges are designed to lend a hand for the endangered animals. At the same time, O’ Dempsey, an LTA independent reviewer of the phase 2 EIA stated that “From an ecology and biodiversity point of view, the two alignment options are comparable in terms of habitat loss. Both options result in the loss of nominally 3 hectares of regrowth forest.”

Even though LTA is currently in a tough position as they must appeal to both the commuters and the nature reserve group request, they are still welcoming the public to raise their concern towards this project. This has proven that the LTA is trying their best to please all parties and come out with the finest solution.

Word Count: 567

References 

Land Transport Authority. (2019, September 2). Cross Island Line. Retrieved from https://www.lta.gov.sg/content/ltaweb/en/public-transport/projects/cross-island-line.html

Hoi, P. C. P. (2019, September 6). Running under nature reserve the better option. The Straits Time. Retrieved from https://www.straitstimes.com/forum/letters-in-print/running-under-nature-reserve-the-better-option

Neo, C. C. (2018, June 28). Nature group seeks more information on impact of Cross Island Line site investigations. Todayonline. Retrieved from https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/nature-group-seeks-more-information-impact-cross-island-line-site-investigations

Toh, T. W. (2019, September 3). Cross Island Line: Running under nature reserve or skirting it both feasible, says LTA. The Straits Time. Retrieved from https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/transport/cross-island-line-running-under-nature-reserve-or-skirting-it-both-feasible-says

Draft #1 Summary_Reader Response: Cross Island

In the article “Nature Group seeks more information on the impact of Cross Island Line Site Investigations” Neo (2018) stated that nature lovers are encouraging the public to voice out their concerns towards the Land Transport Authority (LTA) regarding the drilling works for the future Cross Island MRT line. The public is anticipating whether LTA would release the whole process of monitoring programs as “endangered” animals were spotted after site investigation was completed. They also doubt that LTA did a great job in the environmental impact assessment as the result was “mainly moderate” and was unwilling to provide comment nor evidence when asked. Nature lovers urge LTA to “provide assurance” and re-emphasize that monitoring program should continue even if the site investigation ends. They also highlighted that the monitoring methods and data are the keys to clear the doubts within the public as the information available was insufficient. Actions taken by the nature reserve group are understandable to a certain extent however, LTA did consider the nature reserve and is trying to provide the finest plan that benefits both the environment and public. 

A major factor that LTA has been taking into consideration is the public in terms of both the commuters and the residents that stay around the future construction area. In the article “Running under nature reserve, the better option” Hoi (2019) stated that an additional of $2 billion in miscellaneous costs such as acquiring properties, engineering problems, and longer commute duration as compared to the direct alignment. In response to this statement, the government is paying more for a longer route which will directly affect the commuters as travel fare will increase as well. Also, residents around the construction area might face noise pollution and forced to shift house if skirting alignment is accepted. This will create many inconveniences for elderly residents around the area.

Another factor that plays a huge role in LTA’s decision is nature reserves. LTA did emphasize that they would continue with their efforts to minimize the environmental impacts that come along with the construction in the future. Moreover, Hoi (2019) also stated that impacts are only momentary and “nature will replenish the ecological footprints”. Phase 2 of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) which assesses the potential environmental impact of the construction and operations, as well as the mitigation measures, declare that all the constructions on land are located out of the Central Catchment Nature Reserve (CCNR). The report also stated that in terms of habitat, installations of fabricated crossing aid such as poles and rope bridges are designed to lend a hand for the endangered animals. At the same time, Anthony O’ Dempsey, an LTA independent reviewer of the phase 2 EIA stated that “From an ecology and biodiversity point of view, the two alignment options are comparable in terms of habitat loss. Both options result in the loss of nominally 3 hectares of regrowth forest.”

Even though LTA is currently in a tough position as they must appeal to both the commuters and the nature reserve group request, they are still welcoming the public to raise their concern towards this project. This has proven that the LTA is trying their best to please all parties and come out with the finest solution.

Word Count: 540

References 

Land Transport Authority. (2019, September 2). Cross Island Line. Retrieved from https://www.lta.gov.sg/content/ltaweb/en/public-transport/projects/cross-island-line.html

Hoi, P. C. P. (2019, September 6). Running under nature reserve the better option. The Straits Time. Retrieved from https://www.straitstimes.com/forum/letters-in-print/running-under-nature-reserve-the-better-option

Neo, C. C. (2018, June 28). Nature group seeks more information on impact of Cross Island Line site investigations. Todayonline. Retrieved from https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/nature-group-seeks-more-information-impact-cross-island-line-site-investigations

Toh, T. W. (2019, September 3). Cross Island Line: Running under nature reserve or skirting it both feasible, says LTA. The Straits Time. Retrieved from https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/transport/cross-island-line-running-under-nature-reserve-or-skirting-it-both-feasible-says