- TLDR:
- There are several tools that can be helpful in forming your own view on a sustainability subtopic.
- The Back of the Envelope approach and Lifecycle Analysis (LCA) can help us assess the practicality of green solutions, and to make fairer comparisons.
- This can help make us more informed in our decision-making, whether as a consumer or advocate.
- All that glitters is not Green.
In my last post, I discussed some elements that can help us make better-informed decisions on the issue of sustainability. While purchasing more green stuff is certainly well intentioned, misinformation or greenwashing can easily cause more harm than good. Its better to try out your own calculations and assumptions, and to decide on which positions makes the most sense.
There are two tools which I have found immensely useful to have. There are probably far more useful sources (quick googlefu would do) to learn about these tools, but I’ll try an elaborate on how I have applied it in approaching sustainability.
Back of the Envelope Calculations
A good way to do a sanity check on the hard-to-answer problems. Specifically, it can help give perspective on whether a greener solution is even feasible to be done. This is in part a reaction to what I sense are often unrealistic proposals made by angsty greenies.
Case Study: Solar Energy in Singapore
Unfortunately Markdown doesn’t give me much flexibility to do equations well, but here goes a QUICKMAFS.
Question: Is it realistic for Singapore to be completely powered by solar ?(its so hot and sunny etc etc)
(i) Total Electricity Consumption 51.7 TWh (Terawatt hours) in 2019
(iii) Electricity produced per m2 of Solar Panel (see pvwatts calculator, assuming 15% losses): 267 KWh/m2/year
(iv) Land size: 725,000,000 m2
(v) Dividing (i) by (iii) gives you the space required in m2. This 193,632,959 m2.
Dividing (iv) by (v) shows that 27% of Singapore’s land needs to be covered by solar panels to cover our electricity costs. (I personally would like to validate and spend more time verifying this, but this answer shall suffice for now as a rough figure)
Sources are here, here, here anddd here.
WJ’s assessment: Mmmm kinda but not really - I was initially under the impression that it physically impossible to accomodate that many solar panels, but the calculation produced a land requirement lower than I thought (Singapore’s land mass has actually been increasing).
Some additional considerations:
- COST (huge one), and can be assessed through a further Back of the Envelope Calculation
- The ability for the electrical grid to handle such volumes in a decentralised structure. This will incur even more costs.
- There is a difference between “energy” and “electricity”. Singapore consumed 60,027 TJ of Nautral Gas (excluding Power generation), which is equivalent to 16,674,166,666 kWh (16.6 TWh).
- I don’t believe this figure covers fuel used for transport (which has big implications if we want to talk about Electric Vehicles). This figure
Lifecycle Analyses
A great tool that makes you consider. This is important in sustainability, as its heavily linked to the Recycle or Reuse concepts. Specifically, it helps provide perspective on when reusable or recyclable products are actually better that its single-use versions.
At this moment in writing, I have not had the time to do a comprehensive one by myself (you could easily write an academic thesis focusing on the LCA of one product), so I will instead leave here a few examples to challenge what might be some common narratives out there. This tool was a core part of my thesis on the sustainability impact of autonomous vehicle systems
Tote Bags
Organic Cotton Tote Bags (which at surface level, must be the ultimate in going green no?) has the same carbon emission as 20,000 Plastic bags. For perspective - that requires daily use for 55.7 years. There are also huge impact to the environment due to the entire agricultural process.
Source: here
WJ’s assessment: Possible to be more sustainable? questionable. Realistic? Absolutely not. In short, I think green toting, organic-using individuals are misguided.
Metal Straws
149 times more carbon intensive.
Source: here
WJ’s assessment: Possible to be more sustainable? possible. Also more realistic than I thought - The net-positive benefit could be felt in a year with frequent use. However, I caveat that in some countries (e.g. Singapore) who buy from potentially more pollutive countries (China? though they have made progress in being greener) would likely see this being far higher.
Containers
The problem statement close to home was on takeaway boxes. This proved a little more elusive to find. Generally, Styrofoam is a good option, but faces issues as it tends to end up in landfills (or the sea).
Found out that Glass bottles are five times more emissive on a unit basis compared to plastic bottles. But even that seemed a little low to me.
WJ assessment reaction: Glass seems to be more viable than I thought, but need to read more into the assumptions and fine print. It has definitely challenged my preconceptions, but it could very well be true.
Meat
Beef is more sustainable than pork in Singapore’s context.
WJ assessment reaction: Who wouldda thunk? Certainly caught me by surprise.
Source here.
The Three Rs
As another way of viewing things more critically, I am also cognizant that some other aspects of the Sustainability narrative aren’t the convenient solutions that many think. The the Three R’s are - in my view - a succinct and elegant frame to look at ways to minimise waste. Anything more, (e.g. Recover, repair, rethink, replace, refuse) are simply desperate attempts by green consultants to “add value” to the thinking. As shared in the previous post, I am wary of over-complicating simple frameworks and theorists trying feebly to reframe the issue.
There are reasons why Recycling has grappled with its economics over the past decade. China’s ban on the import of plastic waste also threw the entire plastics recycling market off balance. Furthermore, much of what we recycle is actually not able to be used. Contamination, poor sorting and a very weak business case are reasons why recycling faces a struggle that has been hidden beneath the “lets recycle” narrative,
The Reuse market on the other hand, I believe is gaining traction. I have casually observed an uptrend in vintage clothing and reselling platforms. I view this quite positively. Extending the lifespan of goods is important.
However, I ultimately believe that the most sensible solution of all is to simply Reduce.
To make my case, I find it incredibly ironic that you can get posts expressing concern about plastics waste on a phenomena like singles day. The rise in online sales hasn’t only increased in this over-concern in unecessary plastic packaging. There is great hypocrisy in asking the individual - do you even need to buy this item? A new phone? a new article of clothing? How long will these last?
Being an Informed Consumer
So from a quantitative standpoint, I constantly remind myself to ask the following questions whenever I buy something branded as “sustainable”.
- What is the actual impact of “sustainable” fashion and products? (Carbon, eutrophication, GHG, ocean, etc)
- Is it more harmful or damaging in the way its produced? (e.g. Tote bags).
- Do the assumptions still hold true even after accounting for transportation costs? Where is it made? (e.g. for an importing country like Singapore, there are many variables that need to be relooked)
On a more qualitive or emotive note, I leave the following thoughts behind:
- If you want to feel good - then by all means - many “sustainable” brands who have handcrafted a beautiful narrative about how orphans in Tanzania made a T-Shirt could hit that sweet spot.
- If you want to do good - consider the tools above and make your own judgement. Is what you’re buying truly green?
So how can we reduce? No silver bullet comes to mind. But there are reasons why we AREN’T reducing, which will be the core subject of my next post. Warning - this will be more emotive in nature.