On the Calculator I got 6.1 which was about the middle. However, the calculator doesn't determine the relative size of the nation and its locality into its calculations. In addition it only calculates airtravel which is a major contributor but espeically for a lot of the students at ANU they would drive home ever so often. This process would increase your footprint as its a solo act.
In addition its not far to compare people who live on campus to people who live at home and people who live on their own. As different aspects contribute. For example Living one your own seems to contribute a lot more to your footprint because the food, products and services aren't shared amongst people.
India
Monday, April 7, 2008
Sunday, April 6, 2008
Requirements
There are two goals that need to be accomplished for this weeks collaboration:
Share your views on what population you think Singapore can sustainably support with students from the ANU and why.
Listen to students views on what they think Australia can sustainably support and why.
Discuss your reasons for why you came up with your figure.
To create your final collaboration entry in your learning portfolio on population, which addresses the following question:
i. What are the global implications of population on resources and the environment that make it a significant sustainability issue? What needs to be done to start moving towards a more sustainable population?
Feel free to draw on ideas you discussed in the previous collaborations on Tragedy of the Commons and Campus Sustainability to provide a conclusion to your discussions and collaboration.
Share your views on what population you think Singapore can sustainably support with students from the ANU and why.
Listen to students views on what they think Australia can sustainably support and why.
Discuss your reasons for why you came up with your figure.
To create your final collaboration entry in your learning portfolio on population, which addresses the following question:
i. What are the global implications of population on resources and the environment that make it a significant sustainability issue? What needs to be done to start moving towards a more sustainable population?
Feel free to draw on ideas you discussed in the previous collaborations on Tragedy of the Commons and Campus Sustainability to provide a conclusion to your discussions and collaboration.
Requirements
Dear Everyone,
There are two goals that need to be accomplished for this weeks collaboration:
To share your ecological footprint with your fellow collaborators, and discuss your reactions to each others footprint (be honest but no need to be brutally honest - keep discussions amicable. If you don't feel comfortable sharing your footprint, just give an indication, or range of what it might be.)
To create your second collaboration entry for your learning portfolio on campus sustainability, which addresses the following question:
What are the 'main' challenges to sustainability? What stops us from being sustainable?
India
There are two goals that need to be accomplished for this weeks collaboration:
To share your ecological footprint with your fellow collaborators, and discuss your reactions to each others footprint (be honest but no need to be brutally honest - keep discussions amicable. If you don't feel comfortable sharing your footprint, just give an indication, or range of what it might be.)
To create your second collaboration entry for your learning portfolio on campus sustainability, which addresses the following question:
What are the 'main' challenges to sustainability? What stops us from being sustainable?
India
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Singapore's population
My first concrete definition of the word “sustainability” came from my lectures in Evironmental Economics. The idea is quite neat: you get the golden eggs without killing the goose. The problem is that it takes a certain amount of self-restraint on our ever-unsatiated grubby fingers to be a bit patient for the goose to do its thing.
Some time back, the news was that the MND minister said Singapore was aiming and preparing for a populations of 6.5 million. That certainly set a lot of locals (and some foreign student friends of mine) talking. 6.5 million?? Are they nuts?? And a couple of days later the great MM Lee said it was nuts: he said 5.5 million would already be a squeeze.
These couple of years I’ve often been lamenting to friends: ten years ago, shopping malls in big town centres were quite comfortable hang-outs in weekends. Nowadays, even places like Choa Chu Kang Lot 1 or Sun Plaza are absolutely overflowing on weekDAYS… There has been a housing crunch in university hostels, leading to widespread unhappiness: foreign students think locals should be given lower priority, locals hate having foreign students coming in to compete with them for resources in their own homeland, and both wonder why NUS keeps increasing its student intake if it knows lecture slots, teaching staff and living space is cramped. Is it for the money?
On the whole, Singapore’s tiny living space has a limit to how much you can cram in under the banner of economic growth. Beyond that, leaders should start considering if they’re killing the economic geese.
Cheers,
Kwek
Some time back, the news was that the MND minister said Singapore was aiming and preparing for a populations of 6.5 million. That certainly set a lot of locals (and some foreign student friends of mine) talking. 6.5 million?? Are they nuts?? And a couple of days later the great MM Lee said it was nuts: he said 5.5 million would already be a squeeze.
These couple of years I’ve often been lamenting to friends: ten years ago, shopping malls in big town centres were quite comfortable hang-outs in weekends. Nowadays, even places like Choa Chu Kang Lot 1 or Sun Plaza are absolutely overflowing on weekDAYS… There has been a housing crunch in university hostels, leading to widespread unhappiness: foreign students think locals should be given lower priority, locals hate having foreign students coming in to compete with them for resources in their own homeland, and both wonder why NUS keeps increasing its student intake if it knows lecture slots, teaching staff and living space is cramped. Is it for the money?
On the whole, Singapore’s tiny living space has a limit to how much you can cram in under the banner of economic growth. Beyond that, leaders should start considering if they’re killing the economic geese.
Cheers,
Kwek
Population Sustainability in Australia
Unlike Singapore, Australia has ample land however a lot of this land is not arable or inhabitable. Australia's current population is around 21 million which has increased by nearly 12% since 1996. These figures tend not to include people temporarily overseas, however, include temporary residents and travellers.
As far as a sustainable population goes I think the far reaches is about 25 million. However this is hard to judge because Australia is currently in a very deep seated labour shortage. For example we have several visa programs and currently our yearly intake of skilled migrants is around 150,000. These policies are usually contract work. However, there has been discussion about bringing in 15,000 unemployed construction workers from the US to fill the whole in this field as currently we are also in a major housing shortage. This shortage is not brought on my having too few houses maybe in Canberra but instead having to few affordable houses. For example in Melbourne's mid North-western suburb of Essendon the rent to purchase desparity is enormous. You can be lucky to rent a property in this area for 250-300 a week yet to purchase a similiar property would cost the purchaser around 800,000 dollars.
In relation to housing to become more sustainable we have to adopt a high density housing plan. However, this notion is not breed into the Australian pysche as we have a dream to live on a 1/4 acre block relatively close to the city. This is not the reality though. As the cities expand the public infrastructure doesn't expand with it. Sorry for all the Melbourne inferences but I have not lived in Canberra long enough. For example one of the fastest growing Melbourne regions is the outer north east. In this area most people are middle income earners however this corridor has grown beyond its capacity where the local councils and state government have proposed a new train line for the last 40 years. Yet now its inconceivable as the population density does not leave room for public infrastructure.
Like Singapore during peak hour all forms of public transport that include buses, trams and trains are over crowded by at least 30%. Its incredible with the increase in petrol prices over the past couple of years there has been a flow on affect with an increase in public transport patronage. In Melbourne alone there has been at least a 25% increase in patronage in the last 2 years alone on at least half of its metropolitan lines. In response to this substantial increase services have not been increase instead the Brumby Government trailed a program to relieve peak hour congestion on two of Melbourne's fastest growing lines. This intiaitive gave free travel to patrons on this line who arrived in the CBD before 7am. I actually do not know the outcome of this trial but I think it was successful. If so they were planning to role it out on all metro lines with in a year I think.
India
Population Sustainability in Singapore
In absolute numbers, I would think that Singapore’s current population, i.e. 4.5 million, is about the maximum that Singapore can support. Never in my living memory have I been unable to board the MRT during peak hours, as in the case in the past 2 years. The roads are also congested nowadays; I remember telling people in Bangkok many years ago that Singapore does not jam. Shopping areas in town and in the heartlands are packed with people during the weekends. I can’t even feel the air-con at times. Now, I dread leaving the house on weekends. Further, it’s getting really hard to find seats in eateries, be it at hawker centres or restaurants. Argh. I hate the number of people I see around me!
The above paragraph is about how the increment in population affects the personal daily life of a typical Singapore citizen like myself. However, it is more than that. It is reflective of how the infrastructure in Singapore is coping with the recent influx of migrants. If the infrastructure is coping well, I wouldn’t be complaining this much. The population growth rate of Singapore from June 2006 to June 2007 is 4.3%, with the non-resident population growing at 14.9% and resident population growing at 1.6% (The Edge Singapore, 2008). However, the current infrastructure is proving unable to support this number of population.
The desire to push our population density to the brim is understandable. After all, having a larger population brings benefits to the economy. A larger population translates into more demand for goods and services, and hence, more money circulating in the economy, generating more income. It also means that there will be more talents present to contribute to further economic growth, especially in light of Singapore’s migration policies that give preferential treatment to ‘foreign talents’. Meanwhile, migrants coming into Singapore to take up dirty and dangerous jobs that Singaporeans shun. All seems right for a capitalist Singapore.
Indeed, the government has come up with plans to develop the city’s infrastructure to cope with 6.5 million people, as announced by the Ministry of National Development some time ago. However, doubts has been raised by Minister Mentor Lee about how many people we can really support on this tiny little island? Between 5 to 5.5 milion.
Apparently, when we state numbers such as the above, we are somehow measuring the maximum population Singapore can sustain based on our own definitions of ‘sustainability’, be it in personal terms, economic terms, environmental-friendliness etc. Different people belonging to different strata of society, thinking of ‘sustainability’ with different scales and criteria of measurement will come up with different population numbers.
Yueh Chinn
The above paragraph is about how the increment in population affects the personal daily life of a typical Singapore citizen like myself. However, it is more than that. It is reflective of how the infrastructure in Singapore is coping with the recent influx of migrants. If the infrastructure is coping well, I wouldn’t be complaining this much. The population growth rate of Singapore from June 2006 to June 2007 is 4.3%, with the non-resident population growing at 14.9% and resident population growing at 1.6% (The Edge Singapore, 2008). However, the current infrastructure is proving unable to support this number of population.
The desire to push our population density to the brim is understandable. After all, having a larger population brings benefits to the economy. A larger population translates into more demand for goods and services, and hence, more money circulating in the economy, generating more income. It also means that there will be more talents present to contribute to further economic growth, especially in light of Singapore’s migration policies that give preferential treatment to ‘foreign talents’. Meanwhile, migrants coming into Singapore to take up dirty and dangerous jobs that Singaporeans shun. All seems right for a capitalist Singapore.
Indeed, the government has come up with plans to develop the city’s infrastructure to cope with 6.5 million people, as announced by the Ministry of National Development some time ago. However, doubts has been raised by Minister Mentor Lee about how many people we can really support on this tiny little island? Between 5 to 5.5 milion.
Apparently, when we state numbers such as the above, we are somehow measuring the maximum population Singapore can sustain based on our own definitions of ‘sustainability’, be it in personal terms, economic terms, environmental-friendliness etc. Different people belonging to different strata of society, thinking of ‘sustainability’ with different scales and criteria of measurement will come up with different population numbers.
Yueh Chinn
Singapore's ideal population?
I haven't really thought about what population Singapore can sustainably support, but I believe its certainly much less than the whopping 6.5 million that our government is aiming to achieve, in the next 20 years no less :( Having 6.5 million people would turn Singapore into the world's third densest populated city with 9,293 people per sq km.
This is apparently good for boosting economic growth, which is the main reason why the government wants to do such a thing. Most Singaporeans don't support the policy, but their concerns are mainly about congestion, increased competition for jobs and places in schools, and the effect of increased numbers of immigrants on social cohesion. In fact, the debate about population often gets mixed up with the (sometimes rather xenophobic) debate about immigrants, as what with Singapore's declining birth rates, the government has to rely on increasing immigrant numbers to achieve their population target. Anyway, my point is that in all this, the issue of sustainability is almost never considered.
I think Singapore can support its current population of 4.5 million sustainably, if steps are taken to reduce consumption. Going by the I=PAT equation, which states that environmental impact (I) is the product of population (P), affluence (A) and technology (T), people in developed countries have greater environmental impact per capita than those in developing countries. Therefore, since Singapore has a high level of affluence we should stop trying to increase our population numbers because each person added is going to have relatively high environmental impact.
Si En
This is apparently good for boosting economic growth, which is the main reason why the government wants to do such a thing. Most Singaporeans don't support the policy, but their concerns are mainly about congestion, increased competition for jobs and places in schools, and the effect of increased numbers of immigrants on social cohesion. In fact, the debate about population often gets mixed up with the (sometimes rather xenophobic) debate about immigrants, as what with Singapore's declining birth rates, the government has to rely on increasing immigrant numbers to achieve their population target. Anyway, my point is that in all this, the issue of sustainability is almost never considered.
I think Singapore can support its current population of 4.5 million sustainably, if steps are taken to reduce consumption. Going by the I=PAT equation, which states that environmental impact (I) is the product of population (P), affluence (A) and technology (T), people in developed countries have greater environmental impact per capita than those in developing countries. Therefore, since Singapore has a high level of affluence we should stop trying to increase our population numbers because each person added is going to have relatively high environmental impact.
Si En
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)