wild places | wild happenings | wild news
make a difference for our wild places

home | links | search the site
  all articles latest | past | articles by topics | search wildnews
wild news on wildsingapore
  Today Online 23 Apr 07
Green for good
An interview with Simon Tay
by Sheralyn Tay

He'll be the first to admit he sometimes gets impatient with the way the world and Singapore are moving on the issue of global warming, yet he's also optimistic that we have reached the crucial turning point.

A day after Earth Day, Sheralyn Tay (sheralyn@mediacorp.com.sg) talks to self-confessed liberal, environmentalist and idealist Simon Tay about his views on climate change, criticisms about the NEA and its plans for the year ... Just don't ask him about chewing gum.

Climate change is a pressing issue. Isn't it time for the NEA to focus and be a true National Environment Agency, rather than a Nearly Everything Agency that deals with dengue, mosquitoes, hawkers and litter?

We are not a non-government organisation (NGO). As a professor, I'd love to be out there yelling for critical change. But as a government statutory board, we have to take the signal from the Government.

We are a champion; I don't think we're necessarily a very loud champion. We are also a coach and a cheerleader. With the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) or Housing Board, you'll find our staff spent years to help them think through what it means for a building to be green and what recycled building materials would be good.

We believe that, for this to take off, we can't be the only guys there. Sometimes, that means sharing ownership or even transferring ownership. As long as we get things done, it doesn't matter if we're not seen to be doing the work but we know we did the work.

And while we do deal with a lot of issues, we do not lose focus on the climate change issue if, say, a dengue or haze situation arises. We have separate departments that deal with each issue and there are some synergies within the departments. With energy efficiency as our drive, you'll see us come out much more on the climate change issue.

Really, the environment is all-encompassing, so we can never really be broad enough. We are late to the game, and we are moving as fast as we can.

We will see now, in the typical Singapore way, how things are starting to really happen.

In the last few weeks, we have had the BCA's Green Mark scheme (that rates buildings on eco-friendliness), HDB's pilot Eco-precinct, and the Economic Development Board talking about alternative energy, and NGOs and even accountants coming together for the Green Summit Awards.

All this demonstrates that the hum is happening and the NEA is a partner in all of that.

San Francisco has banned plastic bags and Australia has banned incandescent light bulbs. Why can't Singapore take such steps?

We've, after all, banned chewing gum. (Laughs) Don't ask me to justify the ban on chewing gum.

But I think that we're at a stage of study and action. We've engaged in a two-year study on the impact of climate change. Some people are looking for a ban on, let's say, incandescent light bulbs, because a ban is like a flag that we are serious about something.

In Singapore, we shouldn't be shy about getting tough on things, but we must get tough on the right things and be effective. The world right now is all about cost-effective measures, so we want to approach the issues by taking cost-effective measures to people.

And we want to minimise the impact on the economy and people's choices.

If we mandate it, some people will have to pay costs upfront and some may resist or resent it. We want to create the conditions so that people will make the change of their own volition so that they recognise the benefits of bulbs, cars or fridges that are more energy-efficient, so that market forces and their own conscience will drive them to make the right decisions.

We want to make it such that everyone is happy to help the environment, instead of them thinking a minority of people are ramming a green message down their throats.

So, going forward, what are the NEA's plans for greater energy efficiency?

Singapore is relatively energy-efficient but we have some bugbears, such as the temperatures in office buildings. Some countries are better but a lot of countries are worse. We must try to be even better.

The NEA will take the lead on households, which contribute to about 10 per cent of energy use in Singapore, not a major contributor by any means, but I predict it will take real effort to drive the message home.

Businesses can take a big picture business-type decision, but in households, who does that?

We'll try to help them connect saving the world — which sounds like a really lofty cause — and say you can contribute and champion meaningful actions.

What are your Key Performance Indicators for this drive then?

If you don't see us championing it, if you don't see us getting down to getting households to understand this complex issue, and starting to prepare the mindset change, then you can judge us, and you can judge us severely.

I'll still be chairman by then, so you can blame me.

We signed the Kyoto Protocol only last year. But you see us from Q3 2006 onwards and judge us from now on, on climate change at least. We always say we're only at the "infant" stage of coming to terms with environmental issues.

Isn't it frustrating that we're taking such a long time to grow up both in terms of the citizenry and political will?

Critics are saying that they've yet to see concrete steps taken by the authorities to show that they are indeed concerned about global warming.

Some of us are impatient and we want it now, and it's good to be impatient, but we've got to pull society along. Some of my friends want to sort plastics, but more than 50 per cent of people don't even want to recycle at all.

The priority is to encourage the 1 per cent to keep pushing for more and to pull the rest along with the issue.

I sometimes think things should go faster. It's like standing in a lift lobby— you press the button for the lift; when the lift does not arrive, someone presses the button again and again. It doesn't really help; it just expresses your frustration.

But in these issues, there is a tipping point and if it has taken this long to get here, things are now going to move much faster.

I personally believe that both Singapore and the world have reached a tipping point. My sense is that between 2008 and 2012 when Kyoto reaches its first run-up, Singapore will get its act together domestically and get more involved internationally.

What have you learnt and how have you changed in your five years as NEA chairman on how Singaporeans view environmental issues?

I've guess I've gotten older (laughs). When Mr Lim Swee Say approached me to be the first chairman, I asked: Why me? It was a large agency and I was quite young to head a statutory board.

I joked then that it would educate me from my liberality, such as Government can do more, move faster on climate change, and so on.

I haven't given up on my ideals. In fact, they've been reinforced.

But we got to figure out how to bring more people to recognise that we got to do something. If not, we keep asking how the Government can do something, instead of coming back to what we do in our own homes.
links
Related articles on Singapore: general environmental issues
about the site | email ria
  News articles are reproduced for non-profit educational purposes.
 

website©ria tan 2003 www.wildsingapore.com