Singapore Expats Forum

Air pollution on the up?

Discuss about the latest news & interesting topics, real life experience or other out of topic discussions with locals & expatriates in Singapore.

Steve1960
Editor
Editor
Posts: 1106
Joined: Mon, 13 Aug 2012
Location: Singapore

Re: Air pollution on the up?

Postby Steve1960 » Tue, 29 Sep 2015 11:50 am

Its a real drag with a 5 year old, an 11 month old baby and no live in maid anymore. We can get the 5 year old to wear an N95 mask but still can't get her to school because the baby can't wear the mask. So I have to try and adjust my working times at the office or the eldest has to miss school :-(

User avatar
the lynx
Governor
Governor
Posts: 5239
Joined: Thu, 09 Dec 2010
Location: Midgar

Re: Air pollution on the up?

Postby the lynx » Tue, 29 Sep 2015 12:57 pm

Steve1960 wrote:Its a real drag with a 5 year old, an 11 month old baby and no live in maid anymore. We can get the 5 year old to wear an N95 mask but still can't get her to school because the baby can't wear the mask. So I have to try and adjust my working times at the office or the eldest has to miss school :-(


Aren't schools closed because of the haze? I remember MOE announced that last week.

Steve1960
Editor
Editor
Posts: 1106
Joined: Mon, 13 Aug 2012
Location: Singapore

Re: Air pollution on the up?

Postby Steve1960 » Tue, 29 Sep 2015 1:01 pm

Not the pre school my daughter attends they are open today.

User avatar
JR8
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 16514
Joined: Wed, 24 Mar 2010
Location: K. Puki Manis

Re: Air pollution on the up?

Postby JR8 » Tue, 29 Sep 2015 8:50 pm

earthfriendly wrote:"...Pursuant to our Transboundary Haze Pollution Act, we will be issuing notices in the days to come."


And how is this 'transboundary' legal action going to be enforcible? :???:
'Do it or do not do it: You will regret both' - Kierkegaard

User avatar
ecureilx
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 9283
Joined: Fri, 20 Aug 2010

Re: Air pollution on the up?

Postby ecureilx » Tue, 29 Sep 2015 11:41 pm

JR8 wrote:
earthfriendly wrote:"...Pursuant to our Transboundary Haze Pollution Act, we will be issuing notices in the days to come."


And how is this 'transboundary' legal action going to be enforcible? :???:


By penalising companies that are the source of the haze.

Even though they companies hide behind multiple layers and claim the burns are by contracters, the law has been spelt in such a way that the parent company is ultimately responsible.

User avatar
JR8
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 16514
Joined: Wed, 24 Mar 2010
Location: K. Puki Manis

Re: Air pollution on the up?

Postby JR8 » Wed, 30 Sep 2015 12:06 am

ecureilx wrote:By penalising companies that are the source of the haze.


And who are they: I mean given the scale of the issue the perps must be household names by now?
'Do it or do not do it: You will regret both' - Kierkegaard

User avatar
ecureilx
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 9283
Joined: Fri, 20 Aug 2010

Re: Air pollution on the up?

Postby ecureilx » Wed, 30 Sep 2015 12:15 am

JR8 wrote:
ecureilx wrote:By penalising companies that are the source of the haze.


And who are they: I mean given the scale of the issue the perps must be household names by now?


Well, they been getting away from it claiming the slash and burn is done by a contractor of a contractor of a contractor of a contractor ..

As I said, the law has been worded so that the above escape path is closed, or so it is said.

However, the big companies based in SG, like Wilmar / Kuok, have started enforcing strict no slash/burn policies, it seems, and is getting audited, as Wilmar is Publicly listed in SG

Some interesting thoughts here ..

http://singapore.coconuts.co/2015/09/24 ... t-palm-oil

User avatar
JR8
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 16514
Joined: Wed, 24 Mar 2010
Location: K. Puki Manis

Re: Air pollution on the up?

Postby JR8 » Wed, 30 Sep 2015 1:22 am

Interesting thanks.
Not sure though how SG will whack the producers without whacking themselves (since they seem closely entwined).
Wouldn't banning import of products containing palm oil be a logical step? Would or could SG do it? Don't know...

In a similar vein, as in, actively participate or do nothing until the consequences become intolerable...
---
'Singapore is one of the largest shark fin trading nation[s].'
http://www.wwf.sg
---

Complicated.
'Do it or do not do it: You will regret both' - Kierkegaard

User avatar
ecureilx
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 9283
Joined: Fri, 20 Aug 2010

Re: Air pollution on the up?

Postby ecureilx » Wed, 30 Sep 2015 1:49 am

JR8 wrote:In a similar vein, as in, actively participate or do nothing until the consequences become intolerable...
---
'Singapore is one of the largest shark fin trading nation[s].'
http://www.wwf.sg
---

Complicated.


WWF ? mmmm. never mind. I trust their statistics and reports

And in any case, going after rich countries is more profitable for the likes of WWF .. than going after poorer countries, where the rewards are little and less.

And aren't those folks of WWF demanding that people stop eating fish, cow, chicken and all ?

User avatar
JR8
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 16514
Joined: Wed, 24 Mar 2010
Location: K. Puki Manis

Re: Air pollution on the up?

Postby JR8 » Wed, 30 Sep 2015 2:18 am

Suggesting it's untrue? - Surprising the WWF is not sued oblivion then.

.... and what now, you're suggesting they're a profit seeking organisation? if so how do they maintain charitable status in SG?

------
'How being vegetarian does more harm to the environment than eating meat
...But research has shown that giving up meat may not be as green as it seems.

The Cranfield University study found that switching from British-bred beef and lamb to meat substitutes imported from abroad such as tofu and Quorn would increase the amount of land cultivated, raising the risk of forests being destroyed.

Production methods for meat substitutes can be energy intensive and the final products tend to be highly processed, the report, which was commissioned by the environmental group WWF, found.'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/artic ... -meat.html
------


And, er, you're suggesting (unsubstantiated) that they advocate vegetarianism?
Last edited by JR8 on Wed, 30 Sep 2015 2:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
'Do it or do not do it: You will regret both' - Kierkegaard

User avatar
JR8
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 16514
Joined: Wed, 24 Mar 2010
Location: K. Puki Manis

Re: Air pollution on the up?

Postby JR8 » Wed, 30 Sep 2015 2:21 am

'Fu Lin Men is a Chinese restaurant that provides fine dining experience. Award-winning Executive Chef Roy Tan brings fine Chinese cuisine to new heights with his masterful interpretation of the “Four Heavenly Kings” – abalone, sharks-fin, sea cucumber and fish maw.'
-----
http://www.rcc.org.sg/food-beverage/sha ... urant.html
Raffles Country Club

Klassy eh?
'Do it or do not do it: You will regret both' - Kierkegaard

User avatar
ecureilx
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 9283
Joined: Fri, 20 Aug 2010

Re: Air pollution on the up?

Postby ecureilx » Wed, 30 Sep 2015 3:13 am

JR8 wrote:'Fu Lin Men is a Chinese restaurant that provides fine dining experience. Award-winning Executive Chef Roy Tan brings fine Chinese cuisine to new heights with his masterful interpretation of the “Four Heavenly Kings” – abalone, sharks-fin, sea cucumber and fish maw.'
-----
http://www.rcc.org.sg/food-beverage/sha ... urant.html
Raffles Country Club

Klassy eh?


So RCC imports such huge volume of Shark Fin, to feed how many ? :D :D Like a million people ? to be possibly 'the largest buyer of shark's fin' ?

I am sure I will lose this argument, but there are other countries with much bigger shark fin fanatics and I am sure they import in huge and massive volumes, and to paint Singapore as a large whatever ???

And that too on top of the fact that quite a few restaurants here have gone Shark Fin free.

And comparatively, in US, I read somewhere that only about a dozen states have banned shark's fin, though there are exemptions to that too, i.e. as long as the fin is attached to a piece of shark meat ..

Ps, since I am already drawn into this kind of hypocrisy, take a look at Sea Shepherd, and their campaign against Japanese whaling, and then look up who decimated the whales in such huge volume, before even the world took note and then now the japanese whalers are the most hated ..

Are you a supporter of WWF and the likes, JR8 ?

You win, good night !

User avatar
JR8
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 16514
Joined: Wed, 24 Mar 2010
Location: K. Puki Manis

Re: Air pollution on the up?

Postby JR8 » Wed, 30 Sep 2015 3:56 am

ecureilx wrote:So RCC imports such huge volume of Shark Fin, to feed how many ? :D :D Like a million people ? to be possibly 'the largest buyer of shark's fin' ?


I didn't sat that did I; calm down? But it's precisely that attitude that is the problem. The 'I can do this thing as it's a part of my culture, I alone make no difference, everyone else is doing it so why not me?' - until whole ecosystems are eradicated, and still that thinking doesn't care until it lands right back on the doorstep.

ecureilx wrote:I am sure I will lose this argument, but there are other countries with much bigger shark fin fanatics and I am sure they import in huge and massive volumes, and to paint Singapore as a large whatever ???


Oh so it's someone else's problem, head in sand, do nothing? Meanwhile lets eradicate rhinos and tigers too ....ooh yummy.

ecureilx wrote:And that too on top of the fact that quite a few restaurants here have gone Shark Fin free.


Sorry are you offended somehow? Is the shark-fin ban some kind of personal imposition on your lifestyle? Funny, I'd have thought there were much bigger fish to fry (as such) in that region of the world.

ecureilx wrote:And comparatively, in US, I read somewhere that only about a dozen states have banned shark's fin, though there are exemptions to that too, i.e. as long as the fin is attached to a piece of shark meat ..


Let's guess. That's in States with many Chinese people? I.e. States where people would rather be obliged to vomit on their shoes vs eat sharks fin haven't banned it? You do realise it's a globally weird food product, akin to paying $100/ounce to eat spiders webs or similar?

ecureilx wrote:Ps, since I am already drawn into this kind of hypocrisy, take a look at Sea Shepherd, and their campaign against Japanese whaling, and then look up who decimated the whales in such huge volume, before even the world took note and then now the japanese whalers are the most hated ..


Quite; and I'm pro-whaling (as much as popular opinion hates me for it).

ecureilx wrote:Are you a supporter of WWF and the likes, JR8 ?
You win, good night !


No, and never have been. More a supporter of common sense over sentimentality, ignorance, or vested interests. Or at least I'd like to think so :)

TTYL
'Do it or do not do it: You will regret both' - Kierkegaard

User avatar
ecureilx
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 9283
Joined: Fri, 20 Aug 2010

Re: Air pollution on the up?

Postby ecureilx » Wed, 30 Sep 2015 4:18 am

JR8 wrote:..


me is never offended ..

But I still get a bit confused when instead, for example, saying "Singapore imports shark fins", the headline is made like "Singapore is a large importer of Shark's fins"

Just to clarify, I don't eat Shark's fin, nor do I agree with it, but my 2 cents is, like the Japanese whaling apparently for tradition/centuries old belief in eating whales, you gotta respect what different cultures have been following for centuries, and the focus should be on converting them, not imposing on them.

In any case, once the attention of the WWf and the likes moves away from Sharks' fin, they may decide eating cows is bad, eating sheep is bad ..

As it is, there is a strong campaign by Greenpeace and their likes to totally stop commercial fishing, if they had their way, never mind the hundreds of thousands who's livelihood is at stake. Let them eat grass, seems to be their current thinking.

Not gonna express what I think about SS and the Captain Watson.

User avatar
JR8
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 16514
Joined: Wed, 24 Mar 2010
Location: K. Puki Manis

Re: Air pollution on the up?

Postby JR8 » Wed, 30 Sep 2015 5:35 pm

ecureilx wrote:me is never offended ..
But I still get a bit confused when instead, for example, saying "Singapore imports shark fins", the headline is made like "Singapore is a large importer of Shark's fins"


I vow to try harder then :wink:
I don't know, are these actual headlines? You'd expect the body of any such article to elaborate.

ecureilx wrote:Just to clarify, I don't eat Shark's fin, nor do I agree with it, but my 2 cents is, like the Japanese whaling apparently for tradition/centuries old belief in eating whales, you gotta respect what different cultures have been following for centuries, and the focus should be on converting them, not imposing on them.


Generally I agree with you there. I'm pro-whaling, if it's within legal quotas. The trouble with finning is that much of it is illegal, and hence uncontrolled. So what with the 'everything must grab now, and sod those who come along tomorrow' attitude the future for shark's looks bleak. And wiping out apex predators usually spells doom for an ecosystem. If you're say a village fisherman on Tioman island (not trying to catch sharks), an illegal Thai shark trawler still ultimately threatens your family's livelihood.
It is heartening that some countries like SG seem to be waking up to the issue. That said, it seems that each time one country bans fins, another country economically matures creating a whole new mass market. I still feel that the emergence of middle/upper classes in the PRC will be the end of sharks.

ecureilx wrote:In any case, once the attention of the WWf and the likes moves away from Sharks' fin, they may decide eating cows is bad, eating sheep is bad ..


Er but cows and sheep aren't wildlife. In the same way there would be much less of an issue with fins if sharks could be commercially farmed... but they can't.
Charities can get mission creep though. For example which charities are not on the global warming bandwagon; that is after all where all the grant funding seems to be heading these days? Out of interest I googled on "Amnesty International climate change" and sure enough they campaign against it! Considering that they started out as a campaign group seeking justice for political prisoners that's a remarkable evolution. A lot of charities seem to be similar. Oxfam started out providing famine-relief, that's where the 'fam' comes in ;), and the 'Ox' is down to it being founded in Oxford, UK. You can be sure they've a major 'global warming' policy and campaign. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if they have a shark-finning campaign too.

ecureilx wrote:As it is, there is a strong campaign by Greenpeace and their likes to totally stop commercial fishing, if they had their way, never mind the hundreds of thousands who's livelihood is at stake. Let them eat grass, seems to be their current thinking.
Not gonna express what I think about SS and the Captain Watson.


I know some of these 'eco' charities can be pretty loony. At times I find it rather challenging identifying charities that don't campaign against things I believe in. [I wonder if the Red Cross have policies on climate change, finning and vegetarianism... ].

Sea Shepherd are way out of line - illegally and dangerously interfering in legal activities. I wouldn't shed a tear seeing SS boats getting their comeuppance as per Greenepeace's 'Rainbow Warrior'. After all, if you operate contrary to the law, and live by the sword...
'Do it or do not do it: You will regret both' - Kierkegaard


  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to “General Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest