Why I try to be green but still drive a car...

Recently, I met an old church friend at a wedding that I haven't seen in ages and he remarked to me he still remembered a story I wrote - all those months ago - about reducing one's carbon footprint, by making some little changes to one's daily life.

I told him my interest in the environment was a fairly recent thing and after some light bantering, and he asked me how that was going, I told the group of friends present I now drive very slowly to assauge my guilt of driving a car. We all laughed.

Then, lately, jokes aside, random criticisms about the fact I drive a car - or in general, criticism about people in environment-related industries who do drive - keeps surfacing at various occasions that now I finally feel I have the need to write what I really feel about the whole issue, no doubt something that recent environment converts must struggle to deal with to a certain extent.

First off, I've never professed to be an environmentalist - or an activist for that matter. I am painfully aware of the limitations of my green credentials. Though I do admit when I first was converted into the green cause, my over-zealousness and enthusiasm for my new found "religion" did cause me to - at several occasions - proclaim quite loudly my disgust for the way certain people around me lived: the obvious selfishness, blatant materialism and I-don't-care-about-the-world-so-what kind of people.

I have since learned to keep my thoughts to myself. And I certainly don't preach, save nagging at my brother for leaving his computer on 24/7 365 days of the year.

Before this year - I think the awareness happened somewhere around February or March - I frankly never really gave the environment much thought. But covering the topic, and meeting the people who care regularly on my jobs, have greatly inspired me to change some bits of my life. I won't go into how I've changed my lifestyle, there's no better person to judge my actions than myself, and I recognise the limitations of what I can do.

So on the issue of cars - and it is a point of contention for many - or my car specifically, I only defence was that I got it last year, at a time where I didn't care very much for my footprint and was none the wiser for the guilt it'll later cause me.

The next idea I'm trying to articulate is a little difficult to explain. Let me borrow NUS's Assoc Prof Lee's words: he told me in an interview before, it's very hard to get people to care about the environment, if it means sacrificing their present way of life. The only way, to achieve mass awareness, or results, is really devising ways - using technology and what-nots - that people can continue to live their lives at current comfort levels, but in a manner that is still sustainable.

The point is I don't think it's a realistic expectation for people to think that if someone cares for the environment, he or she has to live like a hippie in a makeshift caravan, wear tatty clothes and live miserably. It's never going to be possible, and there will never be enough people who will be convinced. The world's best bet is finding ways to support a certain comfort level that man has achieved, while doing it in a sustainable way. Humans are after all, humans. After fighting for progress and technological discoveries to make our life more convenient, it is not realistic to expect humankind to revert to the old horse-drawn carriage days of yore.

The world will not give up its cars. But hybrid vehicles, cars that run on fuel cells, biofuels etc, can go some way in reducing that footprint and in a decade's time, these vehicles will be the norm. Technology will help us to live sustainably, cities of the future - like the eco-city in Tianjin - will be built in a fashion that does away with the need to drive in the first place.

So for people like me, who live in a non-eco-city and out in the sticks, and whom if without a car, would take one and a half hours to get to work on the bus, it now becomes a toss-up between making a great big loss on a purchase I made before I started to care - and giving up a mode of transport that makes me highly efficient at work.

So the sad truth I've been forced to accept, for myself, is I can't give up my car. So now you know. Work is too important to me. And so is my sanity in this crowded, human-infested island.

Given the circumstances, there are a few next-best plans I can formulate, among them is for me to downgrade to a more economical vehicle, which I am trying to do - or wait till I can afford a greener, hybrid vehicle. Or wait till I can afford to rent an apartment that is nearer work. Or in 4 and a half years time, go live in a little village in Britain where everything is accessible by foot within a mile's radius.

Either way, being environmentally-aware is a work in progress. It's not something that can be achieved overnight. There's always more you can do, things you can save, differences you can make, however small. But I've since learned to kill my zealousness in converting, or at least trying to infect people around me to this cause. Many of them - who refuse to see the goodness in little actions, however small, and who always focus on the negative, as if in doing so, it magnifies their ego and self-righteousness - misinterpret such efforts anyway.

For those disparaging, discouraging individuals - who sit in their ivory towers, who think they are too-cool-for-school for any causes, and with their noses turned up at others - I suggest some navel-gazing at how miserable their own lives must be for them to be so bitter. And for people who encounter such people, don't let them get you down.

So yes, I drive a car. Yes, I'm still trying to be green. I'm not being hypocritical. I'm just human. And at least... I'm still trying.

The Self-Righteous, Moralistic Newsmaker

So once again I'm on the afternoon shift and everyday I tell myself I finally have the time to write so I really must make an effort.

But once again the long list of "to-dos" swamp my efforts till finally I think I have to write - if only for a peace of mind. Or I'll end up tossing and turning in bed again like last night, staring into my curtains, quietly illuminated by the faint street night lights outside our home, with my mind in turmoil, wandering to numerous places but never quite finding that peace.

So there's one thing that really riled me this week that I should really get off my chest. And here, I present you, the profile of The Self Righteous, Moralistic Newsmaker.
This is a person that takes cheap shots at people around them to justify their high-minded, idealistic notions when really - they should make more of an effort to know exactly what they are talking about, and take a step back to look at the bigger picture.

The context of this: I was looking for people to interview for a particular story last week, involving a change in policy by a state landlord, who has revised one of its systems to push out some popular state properties in the form of bidding.

After asking around, a helpful colleague of mine gave me a contact to call, so I did. And that was when I made mistake number 1, don't interview someone who is relatively poor and rents a $700 flat, when you are writing about a story involving properties that rent for thousands of dollars. Note for future ref: Interview someone who can relate to the story. (I didn't know he was an unsuitable newsmaker.)

I am not rich myself, and often struggle to pay ALL my bills - having fought for and won my independence to live away from my parents (WITHOUT getting married) - and still have a decent life. So I know how the poor (or the relatively poor) often can feel victimised more so than others in situations where they feel they are compromised, so I can almost forgive this newsmaker - let's call him Mr SR - for being so ignorant.

Basically, to cut the story short, literally - my story was about the state landlord selecting some popular properties - like the colonial black & white bungalows highly sought after because of their spacious grounds, colonial architecture and reasonable rents - for a new bidding system, where anyone in the public domain can bid for it.

It had said properties that only cost a few hundred, or the low thousands to rent out, wouldn't be affected because it simply isn't worth the effort and cost to put it through a bidding system. (This, he did not comprehend and immediately talked like the bidding system was a threat to his being able to pay only $700 for a 1-bedroom flat.)

And to be honest, knowing the market, and how some of these lovely big bungalows get hogged by one same family for centuries because they pass it on to their mother, brother, uncle, sister, grandmother and cousin in law of a friend's, I was objectively in favour of it, because it sounded like a fair, good idea - although I know these properties would never be in my reach.

It makes logical sense, in the free market, for whoever really needs it and is willing to pay for it, to be able to live in such a property. The true value of how much the property is rented for, will be decided by market forces in the free-economy. That's how markets have worked for centuries. Unless you were living in North Korea.

So comes Mr SR and his high-minded views, no doubt, groomed by the highly-singular American-centric education, who told me in the interview he thought it was a bad idea.

Fair enough, I agreed. Everyone has their opinion.

But instead of taking his quotes down meekily, and saying bye politely, (as he probably expected me to do) I decided to engage him in some friendly discussion about a pilot exercise of the new bidding system, which has already taken place - which has proven that the bids were pretty much in tandem with the market rate - something he had a gripe with: he insisted that the bidding system will artificially drive up the market.

So very politely, I told him that the pilot has proved his theory wrong, so what does he think?

He had nothing to say, and begrudgingly said, well I guess then.. ok

Excuse me, what kind of a reaction or quote is that? You want me to print that?

After ensuring that I got his details, I hung up and thought nothing much of the whole conversation and proceeded to file my story.

Good intro, background, explanation, one negative voice, one positive voice. Okay, done. I had better things to do with my weekend.

Then I found out on Monday that Mr SR had written a whole blog post dedicated to me in which he accused me of 1. being pushy during the interview and 2. towing the government line and 3. toning down his remarks in my story.

I was livid.

Not only because of the most obvious reason - I was extremely polite to him in my conversation. For him to accuse me of being pushy simply because I was challenging his view really reflected his own insecurities and own self-righteous mental superiority - or rather, his perception of his moral and mental superiority, which in my opinion, was more incredibly flawed than anything else.

But also because anyone who knows me knows I'm the most anti- government-towing reporter ever to breathe, and I always write my stories in a critical tone that more often than not, elicits a request from somewhere up above to "tone myself down".

I tried to forget about it after a brief discussion with T and after defending myself, I didn't give it any more thought. But last night, tossing and turning in bed, this was one of the day's events that kept playing in my head, and the more I thought about it, the angrier I felt.

After so many "toning down" requests, for a puny little American self-righteous prat to tell me I "toned down" his remarks just left me absolutely fuming.

What does he expect me to write, besides the factual truth, which I wrote? Oh, because I didn't sensationalise his objection, that is "toning it down"???
"Mr SR vehemently objected to the change in policy because he's afraid that the $700 flat he lives in might no longer be so cheap". D'oh.

In fact, thinking back, the only insightful quote he offered me was that he thought the bidding system will drive prices up, and price people out of the market. He kept repeating that like a broken record, never really offering any insight to why he is convinced that is the only outcome. Again, I think this has to do very much with the fact he thought people like him will be affected and booted out of a home.

Oh, did I mention also that the new system doesn't actually affect his property at all so all this "I'm so scared of losing my apartment, let's protect the low and middle-income group" crap really seemed like self-centred dribble to me...

So T tells me he's a liberalist and believes in rent control. Hello? Is he stupid? Or just naive? Liberalism and rent control never went together. In fact, American = mother of all capitalist/free market-economy countries = anti-thesis of rent control = against everything that is not controlled or determined by the free market. I was stupefied that an American was saying this... perhaps he should spend his time re-learning the simple basics/ABCs of economics instead of ranting about something he clearly has little understanding of?

I am just absolutely flummoxed by the naivety and ignorance by certain people sometimes who are so quick to judge and jump on their high horse.

On what basis did he have the right to say I was towing the government line.

Because my story was mildly positive?

It wasn't like a chirpy oh-what-a-great-scheme story, but a hey-look, some-people-might-actually-have-a-go-at-living-at-a-colonial-state-property story which was meant to INFORM.

I had no hidden agenda. And I certainly wasn't towing ANY government agenda.

It irks me that so many people have this "cop-out" - oh, ST, reporter, government line. I am beyond trying to engage friendly conversation with such people who only superficially understands the industry. It's just a bloody waste of my time.

So back to the story: if you asked me, frankly, what I thought of the scheme, I would tell you I thought it was a good one - people have more chance at going at these elusive properties. BUT I also thought the scheme probably needs to be refined down the stages to make sure prices are not artificially inflated, or to address any unexpected concerns it might throw up.

But as stated in my story, the new system is only in its infancy stages, with VERY few - read, FIVE properties out of the millions in Singapore - to go online next month, so that the system can be tweaked.
It's not hard and fast. It's not an earth-shattering, Budget-announcement policy change. And it certainly doesn't jeopardize any political idealism one might stubbornly cling on too: It's a freaking property story for goodness sake. Not a let's-look-at-the-underlying-political-idealism-of-this-new-property-system analysis or thesis.

It surprises me that this 29-year-old MR SR can really be so wonderfully quick to point out flaws in our systems, our newspaper, our country - When the fact that he is here, lives here, on CHEAP, RENTED, SUBSIDISED STATE property, means that he is feeding off the 'wonderfulness' of our country to a very large extent.

So Mr SR, if you don't like the country, or the newspaper, you can very well not read it (which I bet you don't anyway, therefore you are SO qualified to judge it).... and do us a favour, fuck off back to America.