Taiwan's electric snake

A couple of months before the first sod was turned for the 2010 Green Point Stadium in early 2007, construction began on a similar project on the other side of the world.

Taiwan’s new 55,000-seater multipurpose venue was completed in 28 months and cost less than R1.5 billion.

Green Point, which will have a smaller capacity when the temporary seating is removed after the World Cup, is still under construction after more than 30 months, during which time the budget has soared from R1.2.billion to R4.5 billion.

But what really hurts is that Taiwan’s stadium is a flagship of green design and technology, able to produce all its own electricity when in use, and to sell its surplus to the neighbours when idle.

Not just that, but it is so breathtakingly beautiful it makes Green Point look like a chamber pot.

Designed by the visionary Japanese architect Toyo Ito after an international competition, the roof curls around the pitch like a snake, glittering with 8,844 photovoltaic scales.

According to Taiwanese officials, the stadium will generate 1.14 million kilowatt hours a year, preventing the release of 660 tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere annually.

Excess power will be sold, adding more than a R1 million to the stadium’s annual income.

So why couldn’t we have one like that?

In fact, why couldn’t all five of our extravagant new super-stadia have been built to double as clean power stations?

Because nobody thought about it, that’s why. Or if they did, no-one with any authority listened to them. It was all about size and spectacle and outdoing the Germans.

Only once the designs were signed off was there a belated attempt tack on various “environmental enhancements”. Now, six months before kick off, they start talking about “green goals”.

It’s too late.

It is now estimated that the 2010 World Cup will be the dirtiest ever, contributing 2.75 million tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

The only way to do anything about that now is to offset it. It would have helped if all our new stadia were able to generate clean, free electricity. Instead, they will add to the problem by increasing demand for the dirty stuff.

So much for a legacy.

(This article was first published by www.enviromedianews.co.za)

It is tempting to write Dubai off as an example of nouveau richeness in a nation swept suddenly from nomadism and subsistence fishing to a centre of global trade, providing goods and services to its obscenely wealthy neighbours who just happened to find themselves living on top of one of the world’s most valuable resources.

Like lottery winners from deprived backgrounds, the tiny Emirate has spent its new-found wealth on show-off buildings, ghastly décor and over-powered cars, and with no thought for the future.

But Dubai’s fantastic vision of a shining city in the desert, with its glass towers, artificial islands and even a snowdome, glamourised by an itinerant population of sports stars and pop singers, was shared by European bankers, who are unlikely to have come from deprived backgrounds and whose ancestors haven’t herded or fished (except for sport) for generations.

Did they truly believe in the Dubai mirage, or did they think they could make a quick killing and get out before the ordure hit the rotating blades? Or were they depending on taxpayers to bail them out if things went prematurely pear-shaped?

Dubai World, like all of the world’s biggest companies and most of its governments, appears incapable of imagining a world without SUVs or snowdomes or same-day-return business flights or shopping malls crowded with credit-worthy consumers willing to splurge on this month’s fashion must-haves and imported kitchen gadgets and overpriced sushi.

It’s over, china. Get used to it.

No longer do I feel compelled to spend hours every evening watching mediocre soap operas, so-so American cop series or vaguely amusing sitcoms.

That’s because the standard of programming on all four free-to-air channels is now so low that mediocrity would be  a welcome relief. How else to explain why Two-and-a-half Men and the Amazing Race became the highpoints of my viewing week? Fortunately, those too have been denied me now. If it wasn’t for the ad breaks, I’d be completely cured.

But I love a good ad, notwithstanding my violent aversion to retail activity. The concepts, acting, writing and production values of your average 30 second spot put most of the stuff inbetween to shame. It’s a pity so much of our top creative talent is dedicated to the service of Mammon. But he’s always been the one with the big bucks.

Still, I appreciate the effort that goes into making the selling of junk food, communication services and alcohol so entertaining.

Which is not to say that there isn’t a lot of rubbish on, particularly at this time of year. And then there are those endless, nausea-inducing attempts at nationbuilding-by-tv with their swelling anthems and heroic shots of models pretending to be getting ready for 2010.

I’d much rather watch a KFC ad, even though the brand seems unable to decide whether it’s nasty or nice. The quirky sweetness of the “I am what I am” spot with the creatively -dressed schoolboy seems to have emerged from a different consciousness to the cringing embarrassment of the “some things you shouldn’t share, some things you should” campaign, especially the brilliant “older woman thing” execution.  Different target markets, of course, but does the consumer really make a big distinction between a Family Feast and a Variety Bucket?

The Steers “things are just better” ad is another that stands repeat viewing. The idea is not huge, but it’s a relevant, tightly written and well-acted spot that couldn’t have cost very much. Unfortunately it does more for London than for Steers, and nothing at all for our own country.  Not even a rare fillet steak chargrilled by a local fleischmeister could compete with a transport system that actually works.

Another spot I always enjoy is the Hunters cider ad, in spite of its dangerously flippant approach to global warming. Love the front man, love his voice, love the pun, intentional or not, of “soon you’ll have a lot of china’s emitting a lot less heat”.

Still, it’s irresponsible, y’hear? “It won’t change the world,” our man says. But it will. Every bottle of cider is the end result of a long chain of carbon intensive processes from fertilising and spraying the apple trees  to transporting the final product to your local bottle store to be refrigerated before it can cool you down.

But at least it’s tongue-in-cheek, which is far preferable to the self-righteous greenwash purveyed by the truly cynical.

No product, no matter how efficient, alternative or organic, has a positive impact on the environment. All you could conceivably say is that it does less harm than the alternatives.  Production requires energy. water and raw materials and creates waste. Even if you’re making solar water heaters or farming free range eggs.

If we’re really serious about helping the environment, we’ll have buy far fewer things instead of just buying different things.

But you know how it goes. If I stop buying things and you stop buying things and our chinas stop buying things and their chinas’ chinas, soon you’ve got a whole lot of chinas without jobs.

Not least our chinas in advertising. But that, at least, could be a good thing. Some of the country’s most creative minds would then be available to think about more important things than how to persuade women that they need to apply make-up to their armpits.

Like how to persuade people that they don’t need 99% of the rubbish advertised on TV. In fact, they don’t even need a TV.

Especially with all the good advertising gone.