Our planet, our home is being neglected. Climate change continues unabated. It seems there's a new ecological disaster happening almost daily. This Earth Day it's time to mobilize the planet from the ground up to send a message that the Earth won't wait!
Dear green lovers, the Green and Blue Group cordially invites you to attend the "One Day On Earth" Global Screening on the Earth Day on 22nd April, 2012, 11am-1.30pm at Experimental Theatre, University Malaya.
We would like you to car-pool to the event location (Just nearby Dewan Tunku Canselor). Please bring your friends and family along!
Admission is FREE.
Besides that, there'll be a talk on "Recycling: An Idea of Zero Waste?" by our member, Mr. Ng Chee Guan at 10.00am to 10.30am. Please feel free to attend!
For more information, please contact Kimlee at 019-4489986.
Each year, Earth Day -- April 22 -- marks the anniversary of what many consider the birth of the modern environmental movement in 1970.
The height of hippie and flower-child culture in the United States, 1970 brought the death of Jimi Hendrix, the last Beatles album, and Simon & Garfunkel’s “Bridge Over Troubled Water”. Protest was the order of the day, but saving the planet was not the cause. War raged in Vietnam, and students nationwide increasingly opposed it.
At the time, Americans were slurping leaded gas through massive V8 sedans. Industry belched out smoke and sludge with little fear of legal consequences or bad press. Air pollution was commonly accepted as the smell of prosperity. “Environment” was a word that appeared more often in spelling bees than on the evening news. Although mainstream America remained oblivious to environmental concerns, the stage had been set for change by the publication of Rachel Carson's New York Times bestseller Silent Spring in 1962. The book represented a watershed moment for the modern environmental movement, selling more than 500,000 copies in 24 countries and, up until that moment, more than any other person, Ms. Carson raised public awareness and concern for living organisms, the environment and public health.
Earth Day 1970 capitalized on the emerging consciousness, channeling the energy of the anti-war protest movement and putting environmental concerns front and center.
The idea came to Earth Day founder Gaylord Nelson, then a U.S. Senator from Wisconsin, after witnessing the ravages of the 1969 massive oil spill in Santa Barbara, California. Inspired by the student anti-war movement, he realized that if he could infuse that energy with an emerging public consciousness about air and water pollution, it would force environmental protection onto the national political agenda. Senator Nelson announced the idea for a “national teach-in on the environment” to the national media; persuaded Pete McCloskey, a conservation-minded Republican Congressman, to serve as his co-chair; and recruited Denis Hayes as national coordinator. Hayes built a national staff of 85 to promote events across the land.
As a result, on the 22nd of April, 20 million Americans took to the streets, parks, and auditoriums to demonstrate for a healthy, sustainable environment in massive coast-to-coast rallies. Thousands of colleges and universities organized protests against the deterioration of the environment. Groups that had been fighting against oil spills, polluting factories and power plants, raw sewage, toxic dumps, pesticides, freeways, the loss of wilderness, and the extinction of wildlife suddenly realized they shared common values.
Earth Day 1970 achieved a rare political alignment, enlisting support from Republicans and Democrats, rich and poor, city slickers and farmers, tycoons and labor leaders. The first Earth Day led to the creation of the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the passage of the Clean Air, Clean Water, andEndangered Species Acts. "It was a gamble," Gaylord recalled, "but it worked."
As 1990 approached, a group of environmental leaders asked Denis Hayes to organize another big campaign. This time, Earth Day went global, mobilizing 200 million people in 141 countries and lifting environmental issues onto the world stage. Earth Day 1990 gave a huge boost to recycling efforts worldwide and helped pave the way for the 1992 United Nations Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. It also prompted President Bill Clinton to award Senator Nelson the Presidential Medal of Freedom (1995) -- the highest honor given to civilians in the United States -- for his role as Earth Day founder.
As the millennium approached, Hayes agreed to spearhead another campaign, this time focused on global warming and a push for clean energy. With 5,000 environmental groups in a record 184 countries reaching out to hundreds of millions of people, Earth Day 2000 combined the big-picture feistiness of the first Earth Day with the international grassroots activism of Earth Day 1990. It used the Internet to organize activists, but also featured a talking drum chain that traveled from village to village in Gabon, Africa, and hundreds of thousands of people gathered on the National Mall in Washington, DC. Earth Day 2000 sent world leaders the loud and clear message that citizens around the world wanted quick and decisive action on clean energy.
Much like 1970, Earth Day 2010 came at a time of great challenge for the environmental community. Climate change deniers, well-funded oil lobbyists, reticent politicians, a disinterested public, and a divided environmental community all contributed to a strong narrative that overshadowed the cause of progress and change. In spite of the challenge, for its 40th anniversary, Earth Day Network reestablished Earth Day as a powerful focal point around which people could demonstrate their commitment. Earth Day Network brought 225,000 people to the National Mall for a Climate Rally, amassed 40 million environmental service actions toward its 2012 goal of A Billion Acts of Green®, launched an international, 1-million tree planting initiative with Avatar director James Cameron and tripled its online base to over 900,000 community members.
The fight for a clean environment continues in a climate of increasing urgency, as the ravages of climate change become more manifest every day. We invite you to be a part of Earth Day and help write many more victories and successes into our history. Discover energy you didn't even know you had. Feel it rumble through the grassroots under your feet and the technology at your fingertips. Channel it into building a clean, healthy, diverse world for generations to come.
The Green and Blue Group had participated in the NTV 7 Yuan Carnival at Auto City Penang on last Saturday and Sunday! Here are some photos to share with you.
Our exhibition was aimed at sharing information on waste generation in urban area and the concept of waste separation at source with the children and parents who visited our booth.
The kids participated in the making model exhibition too! Look, they put on various colours to our landscape here.
Tan Sri Dr. Koh Tsu Koon officiated the Penang Yuan Carnival and paid a visit to our booth. He gave a 'Like' to us!
Mr. Ng Chee Guan demonstrated the simple way to do Takakura Home Composting Method to the mothers. Yes, do you have any question, madam?
The Green and Blue Talk Time has come!
Rather than throwing everything into one bin, we actually urged the audience to do waste separation and make use of the 3 colour bins to the fullest. Phoebe Lim and Kimlee Choy both had conducted a light and interactive opening talk with the audience.
'Draw Something' interactive games with the parents and children, aimed at teaching the kids to learn new words about environment.
You'll be surprised by their imagination and drawings!
We are a team of Four! Thanks to the volunteers Ng Chee Guan (started from left), Kimlee Choy, Phoebe Lim and Jaron Keng who devoted their time at Penang. Also, special thanks to the NGO and president, Dr. Wong Ruen Yuan who supported our educational event within these 2 days.
Recently,
Minister of Housing and Local Government (MHLG), Dato’ Wira Chor Chee Heung,
had made an official announcement that the federal government, through the
National Solid Waste Management Department is embarking on a determined path to
introduce the first ever mass-scale incinerator facility with capacity of
800-1000 ton of municipal solid waste (MSW) per day in Kuala Lumpur. The
minister had called for an “international tender” for the project in June/July
this year, citing a “critically needed” for such a waste disposal facility in
KL. A three-week lab on the best incinerator was carried out from 26 March,
gathering a group of experts from academic institutions, NGOs, etc to scrutinize
on the best technology, financial model, location and mitigation measures.
According to most media sources, the capital expenditure of the incinerator
ranges from RM500 million to RM800 million and expected to be completed in
2015.
Presently, the
generation of MSW in KL is about 3000 ton/day. About 2000 ton/day of MSW arise
in KL is compacted at Taman Beringin Transfer Station (located at Jinjang)
before disposed at Bukit Tagar Sanitary Landfill (BTSL) which located at Batang
Berjuntai, 70km away from KL city centre. BTSL is the largest sanitary landfill
in Malaysia, with a built-up area of 1700 acres, operating capacity of 2000
ton/day and lifespan of 40 years. It was commenced in 2005 with capital cost of
about RM200 million and the tipping fees range from RM28 to RM49 per ton. BTSL
is a certified CDM (Clean Development Mechanism) project by UNFCCC and it is
claimed that generation capacity of 6 Megawatt of electricity is possible with
of 3 Megawatt supplied to TNB.
Incineration or “mass burning” is the common MSW disposal method
globally after landfill. It is one of the most expensive waste treatment
facilities especially when equipped with energy recovery and advanced emission
control technology. Besides incineration, other thermal treatment technology
such as pyrolysis and gasification are typically operated in small scale
plants. Incineration can reduce the mass of MSW to less than 10% and hence
increase the lifespan of landfills. Compared to landfill, the advantages of
incinerator (with energy recovery) are typically the environmental benefits
such as lower carbon emission, avoidance of land contamination, higher energy
recovery per ton, outputs of ashes in inert form, (chemically stable without
odor) and requires a minimum area of land. Economically, the benefits are the
location which can be near to city and land value with less depreciation unlike
landfill. For a sanitary landfill, post-closure of at least 30 years is
required after the operational phases. After that, the land can only be used as
low value purposes such as recreational area or golf course as the soil
structure is not suitable for building construction, especially high rise.
However, the drawbacks of the financial economic of incinerator is much
higher that its benefits. The capital and operational cost of incinerator is
much higher than a sanitary landfill. The CapEx of an incinerator with same
capacity with a sanitary landfill is at least 3 times more expensive while the
OpEx is 10 times higher. For a case study, Pollution Engineering Sdn Bhd (PESB)
had fabricated a 12 ton/day incinerator with capital expenditure (capex) of RM
9-10 million and operated for 2 years in Kuantan Municipal Council for R&D
purpose in year 2004. It was found that it comsumed about 120 Litres (L) of
diesel to incinerate 1 ton of MSW from Kuantan. Hence, the operational
expenditure (opex) is easily more than RM 300/ton as the fuel (diesel) alone
cost more than RM 200/ton with the current market price of diesel of RM 1.80/L.
5 units of small-scale incinerators of rotary kiln type were in erected
in 5 tourism spots: Pulau Langkawi (100 ton/day), Pulau Labuan (60 ton/day),
Cameron Highlands (40 ton/day), Pulau Pangkor (20 ton/day) and Pulau Tioman (10
ton/day). The incinerators use autogenous combustion technology (ACT), which
involves the usage of a rotary kiln and an air-injection system to ensure
continuous combustion. Recyclables
will be removed from the waste prior to incineration. Emissions resulting from
the combustion process will be treated by a combination of pollution control
systems to remove dust particulates, acid gases, nitrogen oxides, heavy metals
and dioxin.Solid
waste leachate and wastewater from the plant and truck washings will be
directed to a wastewater treatment plant prior to discharge. An end-of-pipe
continuous emissions monitoring system will be installed to monitor compliance
to DOE requirements.
Figure 1.0: Incinerator of 12 ton/day for Kuantan
Municipal Council (Pollution Engineering Sdn Bhd, 2010)
These incinerators are designed and constructed by XCN Technology Sdn
Bhd. The primary purpose of the introduction of incinerators at tourism spots
is to divert waste from the landfill as the scarcity of land in island and
highland area. However, all these incinerators are still in testing and commissioning
phase by MHLG until today. The incinerator in Pulau Pangkor had begun operation
on 19th March 2012. According to the plant manager (whom I had
managed to interview), the CapEx of the plant is RM24million and the OpEx is
about RM220/ton with manpower of 20 personnel. The design capacity is 20
ton/day but the daily waste generation at the island is only 6-7 ton/day. So
the operation only run for 3-4 days a week and the rest of days are sorting and
recovering of recyclable materials. All the incinerators have no energy
recovery except in Pulau Langkawi,capable of generating 1MW of
electricity. The bottom/fly ashes are landfilled. From my
observation at the incinerators at Pulau Pangkor and Cameron Highland, open
dumps are located beside the incinerators. JPSPN (National Solid Waste
Management Department) under MHLG, rehabilitates and upgrades the open dumps
into sanitary landfills.
Figure 2.0:Incinerator of 40
ton/day at Cameron Highland (March, 2012)
Figure 3.0:Open dumping beside
incinerator at Cameron Highland (Blue Valley)
Figure
4.0: New sanitary landfill (upgraded) at another side near to the incinerator
at Cameron Highland
According to Director-General of JPSPN, small incinerators
had been built in Langkawi, Pangkor, Labuan, Tioman and Terengganu in the late
1990s. All had failed due to faulty design, poor maintenance, improper
operation and high diesel usage. The new incinerators are tailor-made to suit
local waste characteristics, such as high moisture content of 60% to 70%. In
the past, waste incinerators failed as they were of European make and not
suitable for our waste. The new incinerators will also have the cost-effective
element inserted, including low operation cost. Pollutant such as dioxin is
released if the burning temperature is low. If the burning capacity of the
incinerator goes above 800°C, all dioxin will be burned off and destroyed.
The financing model for incineration is thus a very important aspect in
the development of any high cost thermal treatment facility. Presently, all the
OpEx of the five incinerators are borne by federal government. For the total
capacity of 230 ton/day, the OpEx will be about RM18.5 million per annum. If
the 1000 ton/day incinerator is included, the total cost will be RM80 million
per annum which is sufficient to be the CapEx for two 300-400 ton/day
composting plants. Incinerator is a proven technology and environmental
beneficial, but definitely not cost-effective.
This is especially true for MSW in Malaysia with a high percentage of
organic fraction i.e. high moisture content and low calorific value. Compared
with sanitary landfill which OpEx is about RM20-30/ton, there is a shortfall of
RM200/ton if incinerator is to be the alternative. The funding by federal
government to bear the operational cost is not sustainable it will increase the
operational expenditure of country’s budget. Unless the people is willing is to
pay more for the disposal of waste (under assessment tax or direct billing).
The willingness to pay (WTP) of residents for waste disposal has to be gauged
and evaluated to enable to possibility of introduction of Pay-as-You-Throw
(PAYT) charging system (by weight). One argument of the drawback of the system
is low income group generate more food waste (by weight) and hence have to pay
more. For example, the poor will purchase a coconut, watermelon, chicken, etc
and the residues of these food wastes made up a huge amount of weight. One
method to tackle this problem is by “Indifference Consumer Pay Principle”, a
carrot and stick approach in which the consumers that practice segregation at source
are not necessary to pay for the waste that is segregated. However, this system
is complicated and requires substantial institutional arrangement for the
implementation.
In the author’s opinion, the next most viable trajectory to head toward
integrated MSW management in Malaysia is the mainstreaming of composting
facility. By diverting the organic fraction of MSW for biological treatment,
the rest of the waste (residual waste) has higher calorific value and the
weight can be reduced by at least 40%. Hauling fee can be saved if the
composting facility is located near to waste generation point or “on-site”. By
diverting the organic fraction of MSW, we have double benefits of nutrient
recovery (compost) and increased viability/efficiency of incineration,
especially incinerator with energy recovery which surplus electricity
generation can be sold to TNB with the Feed-in Tariff scheme by KeTTHA
(Ministry of Water, Energy and Green Technology). Hence, MHLG should unlock the
potential of biological treatment by promoting it with incentive and funding
for capital cost while discourage landfill with taxes. MHLG has to acknowledge
the imperative of composting as the key cornerstone toward integrated waste
management model.
Figure
5.0: Material flows from MSW toward integrated waste management model
Prepared by:
Jaron Keng Zi Xiang
Secretary
Malaysia Green and Blue Environment Protection Society