‘Sustainability goes beyond environment, also covers socio-economy'
Majang hails Bintulu Port as leading the efforts in environmental stewardship by protecting marine biodiversity, reducing water pollution, and implementing robust environmental practices in port operations. – Photo from Sarawak Public Communications Unit
BINTULU (April 29): Sustainability is not just about protecting the environment, but is also about building resilience, securing economic stability, and safeguarding the well-being of future generations.
In highlighting this, Deputy Minister of Infrastructure and Port Development Dato Majang Renggi points out that Sarawak's vision is clear – to strike a balance of economic growth, environmental responsibility, and also social inclusivity.
'At the heart of this transformation lies our port industry, which plays a pivotal role in advancing this vision,' he said at the launch of the 'Customer Centric Centre (CCC) and Sustainability Initiatives' in Wisma Kontena of Bintulu Port in Tanjong Kidurong yesterday.
According to Majang, Sarawak has long been 'celebrated' for its rich biodiversity, abundant natural resources and immense economic potential.
'Yet, we remain acutely aware of the opportunities that lie ahead in a world transitioning toward a low-carbon economy,' said the Samalaju assemblyman.
He also pointed out that the Sarawak government, under the Post-Covid-19 Development Strategy (PCDS) 2030, had made a strong commitment to sustainable development, placing sustainability at the core of its future growth.
'One of the key pillars of this strategy is the transition to clean energy.
'Sarawak is determined to become a regional leader in renewable energy, leveraging our vast hydropower resources to fuel green industries.
'In this regard, our ports are crucial drivers of progress.
'As gateways to trade and economic activity, they must align with Sarawak's green agenda by reducing carbon emissions, enhancing energy efficiency, and embracing smart technologies.'
On Bintulu Port, Majang said it had taken commendable strides in digitalising its operations, reducing inefficiencies, and integrating low-emission mobility solutions such as electric vehicles (EVs), e-buggies, and alternative fuel-powered equipment.
'Beyond infrastructure, Bintulu Port is leading the efforts in environmental stewardship by protecting marine biodiversity, reducing water pollution, and implementing robust environmental practices in port operations.
'Its initiatives demonstrate that growth and conservation can go hand in hand.' lead Majang Renggi port industry socio-economic sustainability
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
3 hours ago
- The Star
Curious Cook: Planetary insolvency
It was concerning to see that the UK Institute and Faculty of Actuaries (IFA) has now determined that 'planetary insolvency' is now a relevant risk for our planet. This means that this factor will be utilised by actuaries in estimating future business and domestic losses. This will then have a direct impact on our insurance premiums. Therefore, let us understand what planetary insolvency means. A January 2025 IFA report introduced the concept of planetary insolvency, highlighting stark warnings that without urgent policy shifts, our planet risks crossing irreversible ecological and environmental thresholds by mid-century. The term 'planetary insolvency' refers to a point where ecological and economic systems collapse under compounding climate and biodiversity crises, threatening global stability. This is not a distant hypothetical; it is a global security emergency unfolding in real time. Impacts of planetary insolvency Planetary insolvency is framed as a systemic failure to maintain Earth's life-support systems. This is akin to a business going bankrupt. The report describes catastrophic impacts such as: • Economic devastation: Global GDP contraction exceeding 25%, dwarfing losses seen during the Great Depression. • Unimaginable human toll: Potentially over two billion deaths due to heatwaves, disease, famine, and conflict. • Climate tipping points: Global warming beyond 2°C, triggering cascading collapses like Amazon dieback and/or Arctic ice loss. • Ecological unravelling: Critical ecosystems – coral reefs, pollinators, freshwater sources – collapse, alongside mass extinctions. • Societal breakdown: Mass migration of billions of people, political fragmentation, and the loss of low-lying lands to rising seas. 'This is a national security issue,' the IFA report stressed firmly, as food shortages, clean water scarcity, un-survivable heatwaves, severe hurricanes, lethal droughts, and catastrophic floods destabilise nations and ignite conflicts. The risk matrix As someone who worked in risk management for decades, the subtitle of the report was what originally caught my attention. It was 'Global Risk Management for Human Prosperity' and like all high-level risk reports, it contained a matrix of the assessed global risks. Pollinator decline threatens 75% of food crops and could unravel food systems within decades. — THANGPU PAITE/Pexels The risk matrix outlined is harrowing, as it indicated that climate and biodiversity crises are interconnected amplifiers of disaster. A summary of the risks identified by the IFA are: 1. Economic freefall: A 25% GDP loss would cripple global trade, erase pensions, and collapse industries. As a comparison, Covid-19 caused a 3.5% GDP drop in 2020. The triggers? Supply chain disruptions from extreme weather, agricultural failures, and mass displacement. 2. Mortality crisis: Heat stress alone could claim millions of lives annually by 2050. Combined with malnutrition, waterborne diseases, and conflict, death tolls could surpass two billion, roughly a quarter of humanity. Recent heatwaves in India (2023) and Europe (2024), which killed thousands, are likely to be previews of what may be coming. The strain on national healthcare and medical systems will be without precedent. 3. Tipping points of no return: Crossing 2°C warming risks activating feedback loops, such as permafrost thaw releasing methane or Amazon deforestation turning the rainforest into a savannah. Once triggered, these processes cannot be stopped. 4. Ecosystem collapse: coral reefs, which support 25% of marine life, are nearing extinction. Pollinator decline threatens 75% of food crops. The report warns that losing these 'ecosystem services' could unravel food systems within decades. 5. Migration time bomb: By 2040, over one billion people in South Asia, the Middle East, and Africa may face lethal heat conditions. Mass migrations, which are already visible in Central America's 'dry corridor' and drought/conflict stricken African nations, will strain borders and ignite horrendous xenophobia. Current approaches are failing The report reflects on the current steps taken by various nations, and established that existing market-led solutions like carbon trading and corporate sustainability pledges are wholly insufficient. Voluntary measures have failed to curb emissions (which hit record highs in 2024) or halt deforestation (over 10 million hectares lost annually). National policies remain fragmented or incoherent. The EU's Green Deal is probably the most significant initiative, but it lacks binding global coordination. The US have resigned from the Paris Agreement on climate change and their government have now bizarrely forbidden official documents from even mentioning the words 'climate change'. Meanwhile, subsidies supporting the continued use of fossil fuel hit US$7 trillion (RM30 trillion) in 2023, according to the IMF. This is a glaring, wholly inconsistent contradiction. A blueprint for survival As the report was written by actuaries, it is no surprise to find that it urges governments to treat planetary insolvency with the same rigour as financial crises. Key recommendations include: 1. Annual planetary solvency assessments: Modelled after stress tests for banks, these assessments would evaluate risks like crop failures or infrastructure collapse. Findings would be reported to the UN Security Council, framing ecological collapse as a threat to peace. 2. A global risk authority: A new body within the IMF or OECD would oversee risk assessments and coordinate policy. This mirrors the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) but with enforcement powers. 3. Systemic risk officers: Appointing officers at all governance levels from local to global to integrate risk management and share risk mitigation strategies. For example, cities like Miami and Jakarta, battling sea-level rise, could develop tailored resilience plans and the expertise shared with other cities. 4. National transition plans: Binding laws to phase out fossil fuels, restore ecosystems, and transition to circular economies. Costa Rica's reforestation success (doubling forest cover since 1980) and Denmark's wind energy strategy (50% of electricity) prove such models work. Crossing 2°C warming risks could turn the Amazon rainforest into a savannah. — TOM FISK/Pexels 5. Accountability mechanisms: Public dashboards tracking progress on emissions, biodiversity, and adaptation. Sanctions may be applied for non-compliance, or tactics such as the Paris Agreement's 'name and shame' announcements could pressure laggard countries. Cost of inaction vs dividend of action Of course no country would take action unless it was economically sound, and therefore it is interesting that some of the world's best actuaries have stressed that avoiding planetary insolvency is extremely economically prudent. Investing US$1.3 trillion (RM5.7 trillion) annually in renewables, green infrastructure, and conservation could yield US$26 trillion (RM114 trillion) in economic benefits by 2030. Conversely, unchecked warming could cost the global economy US$23 trillion (RM101 trillion) annually by 2100. 'This isn't about saving polar bears,' said economist Lord Nicholas Stern. 'It's about safeguarding civilisation. The math is clear: mitigation is cheaper than collapse.' Unequal crisis Compounding and confusing the issue is how the impacts of planetary insolvency are unequally distributed. Poorer countries face disproportionately larger risks despite them contributing least to emissions. For example: • South Asia: By 2050, wet-bulb temperatures (heat plus humidity) are expected to regularly exceed 35°C – the limit for human survival – for 300 million people. Extreme weather events such as droughts or floods also threaten farming outputs. • Africa: Droughts could shrink crop yields by 20%, exacerbating famine in large regions of the continent. Desertification and erosion of large areas of farmland, such as what has happened in southern Madagascar, mean that such land becomes permanently unavailable for agriculture. • South America: Changes in weather patterns risk turning the vast forests of the Amazon into savannah grasslands, turning the area from carbon sinks to carbon emitters. • Small island states: Nations like Tuvalu and the Maldives confront existential threats from sea-level rises. Yet wealthier nations are not immune. The 2021 Pacific Northwest heatwave killed 1,400 people in North America, while Europe's 2022 drought caused US$20bil (RM88bil) in agricultural losses. The recent fires in California have incurred losses of over US$150bil (RM660bil), according to the latest statistics. That is on top of an estimated US$500bil (RM2.2 trillion) of damage/losses in 2024 due to hurricanes in the US alone. And even though we now know 2024 was the hottest year in human history, by the next decade, it may turn out then that 2024 was the coolest year in recent history. Beyond individual choices While personal actions (eg, reducing meat consumption, using less fossil fuels, recycling, etc) matter, the report emphasised systemic overhauls at national levels. Basically, we cannot diet, recycle, or economise our way out of apocalypse. The world needs binding laws, not more low-energy lightbulbs. Public pressure is slowly mounting. The 2024 Global Climate Strike saw 10 million protesters demand binding policies. Window is closing, but not shut As the report was written by actuaries, one normally expected a section about the probability of planetary insolvency. Unfortunately, there was no probability range offered, just a cautiously worded statement that avoiding planetary insolvency is still possible, but only with 'unprecedented cooperation'. It suggested the 2025 UN Summit for the Future offers a pivotal moment to adopt their recommendations. As the UN Secretary-General said, 'We are the first generation to feel climate chaos and the last who can stop it. The choice is between collective action or collective suicide.' In summary, the IFA believes the time for half-measures is over. Avoiding planetary insolvency demands nothing less than a reimagining of global and national governance immediately, before our planet goes bust. And this is now a risk factor which we will all feel sooner or later in our insurance premiums. The views expressed here are entirely the writer's own.
The Star
4 hours ago
- The Star
Jetstar Asia's exit shrinks options for consumers, but unlikely to dent Changi's hub status
SINGAPORE: Jetstar Asia's impending exit after more than two decades in Singapore is a blow to budget-conscious travellers, even if the low-cost airline's modest three per cent share of Changi Airport's traffic might suggest otherwise. Although Changi remains well-served by other budget carriers on busy routes such as Bali and Jakarta, Jetstar Asia's departure will sever non-stop links to four emerging holiday spots. The Singapore offshoot of Australia's Jetstar – which began operations in December 2004 – is the only airline that serves Okinawa in Japan, Wuxi in China, Labuan Bajo in Indonesia and Broome in Australia from Changi. While Changi Airport Group (CAG) has said it would work with other airlines to restore connectivity, the prospect of losing non-stop connections to these cities comes at a time when Singapore is looking to aggressively expand the number of destinations linked to Changi. The airport is connected to about 170 cities worldwide, and the target is to surpass 200 cities by the mid-2030s, when Terminal 5 opens. Maintaining as many air links as possible is good for airlines and consumers, especially when low fares are in the mix. This also strengthens Changi's competitiveness as a transit hub. Jetstar Asia, which is 49 per cent owned by Australia's Qantas and 51 per cent by Singapore company Westbrook Investments, cited higher airport fees and aviation charges, as well as intensifying competition, as reasons it had become unsustainable to continue operations at Changi. Linus Benjamin Bauer, founder and managing director of aviation consultancy BAA & Partners, said rising costs are squeezing low-cost carriers. 'Many airlines still operate under pre-pandemic pricing models, but face a vastly more expensive cost base,' he said, adding that more exits or mergers, especially among smaller budget airlines, can be expected. The writing had been on the wall for some time for Jetstar Asia. It was the slowest of the three Singapore-based carriers – the others being Singapore Airlines (SIA) and its budget arm Scoot – to rebound from the Covid-19 pandemic. Its fleet of 13 Airbus A320 aircraft is down from 18 before the pandemic. Its move from Changi's Terminal 1 to Terminal 4 in March 2023 – which the airline protested publicly – also lengthened connecting times for passengers transferring to Qantas or its partner airlines. T4 is a distance from T1, where Qantas operates, for instance. When Singapore announced its latest round of airport fee hikes in November 2024 to fund improvements to Changi Airport and defray rising costs, Jetstar Asia had warned the increases would have an impact on its ability to offer low fares. It also noted that most of CAG's planned upgrades do not apply to T4, where it operates. Under the new fee structure, landing, parking and aerobridge charges for narrow-body jets such as the A320 will rise yearly, climbing from about $1,200 (US$935) per landing before April 2025 to $1,725 in April 2030. Passenger fees will also go up in stages until the end of the decade. Passenger fees at Changi are already steeper than those in regional hubs such as Bangkok. While such costs are seen as necessary to help airports fund infrastructural improvements to meet future demand, the increases have made it increasingly difficult for low-cost carriers such as Jetstar Asia to keep air fares low – their key selling point – without passing the extra costs on to customers. 'Singapore has become a high-cost environment for a low-cost carrier, and Qantas Group and Jetstar feel they can get better returns on their assets in other markets,' said Mayur Patel, Asia head at consultancy OAG Aviation. It does not help that in some cases, full-service carriers such as SIA can also offer low fares if tickets are booked early. This is because they have the flexibility of deploying wide-body or narrow-body aircraft, depending on demand. After its closure, Jetstar Asia's 13 planes will be redeployed progressively across the Qantas Group to support fleet renewal and growth in Australia and New Zealand in line with demand. The low-cost airline's closure comes as global demand for air travel remains strong. Airlines are expected to fly a record 4.99 billion passengers in 2025 – a four per cent increase from 2024 – according to the latest forecast from the International Air Transport Association. The Asia-Pacific region is driving this growth. So why has Jetstar Asia struggled to take advantage of this? This has partly to do with the intensity of competition on seven of the 16 routes that it serves, which are operated by at least three other airlines, data compiled by Mr Patel showed. Singapore-Bali is served by nine airlines including Jetstar Asia, Singapore-Jakarta by eight, and Singapore-Kuala Lumpur by seven. Even fellow low-cost carrier AirAsia has scaled back on some routes of late, likely due in part to higher operating costs. It dropped its Singapore-Ipoh and Singapore-Phuket services, and cut back flights to Bangkok's Don Mueang Airport earlier in 2025. Jetstar Asia's exit leaves SIA and Scoot as the only Singapore-based carriers. While consumers will have one less option, choices still abound, with one-fifth of the 100 airlines at Changi being low-cost carriers. Overall, they serve more than half of the 170 cities that the airport is connected to. Patel said any connectivity gaps left by Jetstar Asia's exit can be filled only in the short to medium term by other carriers. This is due to delays in the delivery of new aircraft and the time needed for capacity changes. Ultimately, Jetstar Asia's withdrawal from Singapore will shrink the choices available to consumers, particularly those eyeing the non-stop links it served exclusively. But its limited market share means that the impact on Changi's standing as a hub will likely be minimal. - The Straits Times/ANN
The Star
6 hours ago
- The Star
Labour's big worry is no one will feel record spending surge
BRITAIN's Labour government will make an historic investment into the country's battered public services this week – a £300bil (US$406bil) uplift for areas such as health care, education and transport, amounting to the largest sustained funding increase since at least 2010. The danger is the public won't notice. For all the political pain Labour has endured by raising taxes to pay for the commitment, the money will seem to disappear. That's largely because the previous Conservative administration cut spending to pay for giveaways before last year's general election, putting public services on track for a period of austerity described by critics as politically implausible. 'It turns out £300bil is the cost of ending implausible,' Andy King, former chief of staff at the Office for Budget Responsibility fiscal watchdog, told Bloomberg. Britons' experience of government over the last decade-and-a-half can be boiled down to two inconvenient facts: frontline services have deteriorated and taxes have risen. Today's broken social contract is that people pay more for less. The latest causes of the rot are ballooning costs from demographic pressures (the size of the state is at a postwar high), a debt pile swollen by Covid, higher interest rates and abysmal levels of productivity leading to persistently weak growth. Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves has the unenviable task of confronting this reality when she unveils her Spending Review and the stakes could not be higher. James Smith, chief economist at the Resolution Foundation think tank, said Reeves' choices could determine whether Britain's long record of centrist politics survives and keeps Nigel Farage's populist Reform UK party at bay. Reform is soaring in the polls with the same promise of 'change' that Labour campaigned on in 2024. 'People are understandably frustrated with Britain's 'less for more' approach to public services in recent decades,' said Smith. 'The combination of austerity, economic stagnation and fiscal pressures mean that their experience of public services is that they don't work properly and yet they are paying more in tax to fund them. This economic failure has created a political opening for political parties like Reform who haven't been in government during this period.' Police seem unable to tackle shoplifters, a record number of patients are choosing private health care above the cherished National Health Service (NHS), and potholes blight the roads. Yet the tax burden is at a post-Second World War high, 3% of gross domestic product (GDP) or £90bil more in today's money than before both the 2008 financial crisis and the pandemic. The Spending Review is Labour's chance to reset the contract, and will be the first opportunity to see clearly where the priorities lie for Prime Minister Keir Starmer's government. Trade-offs will have to be made, with cuts to policing expected to prop up the NHS. Even a record spending boost is not enough to prevent fights over how to split the pot. 'Not every department will get everything they want,' Reeves admitted. 'I had to say 'no' to things I want to do.' Aggravating the problem has been the collapse in productivity since Covid. Public sector workers today are 4.6% less productive than in 2019, according to the Office for National Statistics. That means for the same taxpayer contribution, the public gets a service that is almost 5% worse. That would be bad enough if taxes had stood still but they have risen by £90bil since 2008 in today's money – equivalent to increasing the basic rate of income tax from 20% to 33%. To show taxpayers their money is not being wasted and 'every penny counts,' Labour will cull thousands of civil service jobs. Meanwhile, since 2008, the United Kingdom debt pile has more than doubled to 100% of GDP and now costs about £50bil a year more to service than before both the 2008 crash and the pandemic in 2020, almost as much as Britain spends on defence. Weak economic growth has compounded the problem, costing tens of billions of pounds in foregone tax revenue. On an output per person basis, GDP per head – a proxy for living standards – has grown just 5.5% since the pre-financial crisis peak in 2008, an average of 0.4% a year. In the preceding 17 years, GDP per head grew eight times faster - by more than 45%, or 2.2% a year. — Bloomberg Philip Aldrick writes for Bloomberg. The views expressed here are the writer's own.
