The green advocacy is already very clear as it is, but there is still a need to clarify what the blue advocacy really is. In my previous columns, I wrote about my proposed definition that the blue advocacy should include both connectivity and energy.

After giving it some serious reconsideration, I am now ready to revise my proposal, and this time I am proposing that the blue advocacy should definitely include interconnection and automation, meaning that energy should now rightfully belong to the green advocacy.

As I understand it, the green advocacy should involve a complete supply chain (CSC) of all actions and processes that are good for the environment and are ultimately good for everyone in planet Earth. By necessity, the CSC should also include everything that has to do with climate change adaptation (CCA) and disaster risk reduction (DRR). Ideally, all these actions should eventually end up in an organized carbon credits scheme, so that all those who join in and help out are rewarded with real usable values, and not just a sense of purpose.

Putting it another way, the green advocacy should be good for the health of the people in the planet by way of the food that they eat, and the air that they breathe. In between all that, it should also be good for their pockets, positively saving them some money, and possibly even allowing them to earn more money for their livelihood. Extending it a little bit more, it should also be good for the economy, in terms of substituting the foreign products that we are now importing, particularly the fossil fuels and oils that are bad for our environment anyway.

Needless to say, the green advocacy should also include energy efficiency, not only in the fuel that we use for our vehicles, but also for the electricity that we use for our homes, offices, factories and public places. Of course this should also include the substitution of the expensive power sources with more economical power sources that are renewable. Economical, because they are practically free, coming from the sun, the wind and the waves. Additionally, it should also include cooking fuels that would substitute for liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), charcoal and wood, all of which are bad for the environment.

I was a co-moderator in a “Smart Cities” forum that was held in conjunction with a recent British trade mission. In that forum, we talked about how “built environments” such as buildings and public infrastructure could become “smart”, a concept that is along the idea of “intelligent buildings”. By direct association, there is no argument that in order for a building to be “smart” or “intelligent”, it has to be “green”. It goes without saying however that even if a building is “green”, it could not be considered as “smart” or “intelligent” if it there is no interconnection and there is no automation, from within and towards the outside.

Conceptually, a building is only a microcosm of a megacity, meaning to say that whatever works for a building would also work for the bigger macrocosm. Taken from a broader perspective however, there are other aspects that are only applicable to the bigger scale, such as public utilities and other common facilities. Some of these aspects may not exactly fit into either of the two advocacies, such as the need for a megacity to be walk-able and bike-able. There are many who would argue even now that not unless a megacity is walk-able and bike-able, it could not be considered as “smart”.

There are many public services that should be part of “smart” megacities, but healthcare and education stand out as the most important among the others. This is where interconnection becomes important, because these two services should be delivered direct to the homes and buildings. Healthcare in this case is telemedicine, and education is e-learning, respectively. Automation could also play significant roles in these two services, because the more automated a home or building is, the easier it is to deliver electronically.

Hopefully in the near future, buildings and cities will become greener and bluer. Under normal circumstances, the private sector should drive the movement towards the realization of these two advocacies because what are good for the people should also be good for business. As it is now however, we seem to be in a chicken and egg situation, because public policies are needed in order to move these two advocacies forward. The problem is, functions involving these two advocacies cut across many government agencies, and it is difficult at this point to identify which of the government agencies should lead.

Meantime, there appears to be a standstill in the implementation of the carbon credits scheme both locally and internationally. This is a sad reality that we are facing now, because without such a scheme in place, there is no reward for those who want to become greener, both in the personal and commercial level. We could talk about CCA and DRR until our eyes would turn blue, but not unless a carbon credits scheme is put in place; it is difficult to even imagine that buildings and cities would become smarter.

For feedback, email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or text +639083159262