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
  Straits Times Forum 17 May 07
Greenhouse gas emissions - tackle the non-industrial culprits
Letter from Lim Yew Jin, Research Fellow, NUS

Straits Times 12 May 07
Singapore's green drive: Is enough being done?
By Aaron Low

FROM clean to green, this past year has seen Singapore make the move from addressing local environmental issues to global ones.

The Government has drafted an extensive plan to address climate change, including commissioning a two-year study on its possible impact on Singapore. It has also set aside $350 million to develop alternative sources of energy like solar, wind and biofuels.

The results are beginning to show. Singapore has already met its 2012 target of reducing carbon intensity levels by 25 per cent from its levels in 1990, says the National Environment Agency. Carbon intensity is a measure of carbon dioxide emissions per dollar generated by the economy.

But environmentalists like Nature Society president Geh Min think Singapore can and should do more, like reviewing its carbon intensity target.

Earlier this year, an international panel of scientists warned that if nothing is done to stop global warming, there could be disastrous results. These include droughts, floods and rising sea levels, which could have an impact on Singapore.

Nominated MP Edwin Khew thinks Singapore should move to address such issues one step at a time: 'Let's start with the lowest-hanging fruits first, like increasing energy efficiency, before looking at legislation to enforce green measures.'

The Government itself said that it will take a pragmatic approach to the whole issue.

But given the warnings by scientists, is Singapore doing enough? And what of the opportunities available? Insight finds out.

For S'pore, it pays to go green

With the environment making headlines all round the world, Singapore too is investing as never before in clean energy and sustainable development. But does this reflect a real shift in mindset towards global environmental concerns? Aaron Low reports

IT WAS as if someone suddenly turned on the lights in a dark room. Five years ago, when Mr Frank Phuan first entered the solar energy business, there was hardly any interest in using the sun to generate power for Singapore's needs. Solar power was seen as costly and not suited to local conditions, characterised by cloud cover that often blocked the sun's rays.

But attitudes have been changing at light speed of late. Mr Phuan says: 'Now, I get government officials arranging meetings with me, asking me things, trying to understand how solar energy can work for Singapore.'

That change appears to be part of a larger green wave sweeping through Singapore and gaining momentum over the past 12 months.

During this period, Singapore ratified the Kyoto Protocol, some nine years after the international treaty to cap greenhouse gases was first framed. The Government also announced a slew of measures to grow the clean energy sector, including pumping in $350 million to grow such industries.

Homes are also going green. In March, the Housing Board announced that new flats in Punggol will use solar energy for lighting, have special walls to keep their interiors cool and water recycling systems.

While Singapore has always prided itself on being a clean, tree-lined garden city, its record on green causes such as nature conservation, recycling and renewable energy has been patchy.

Do the recent changes mark the final flowering of an environmental consciousness here? If so, what has brought it on?

Consensus, cash, competitiveness

THE new-found green consciousness is likely due to a confluence of factors which taken together, have transformed sustainable development from a 'nice to have' to a 'must-have' for an island state like Singapore.

The most dramatic of these factors is surely the mounting evidence that climate change is for real and could hurt any and every country on the planet.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a group of more than 2,000 scientists from more than 100 countries, has warned that if left unchecked, global warming would lead to devastating consequences, including rising sea levels, droughts and famines.

To slow this process, the panel has called upon countries to cut the emission of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide, turn to renewable sources of energy, and embark on sustainable development.

Nature Society president Geh Min says these reports have pushed environmental issues from the periphery into mainstream thinking. 'These things have been said before. What these reports did was to shock people and make them realise that all the nightmare scenarios are real,' she says.

In April last year, Singapore joined the global effort to cut carbon dioxide emissions by acceding to the Kyoto Protocol. But it did so as a non-Annex 1 country, which means it is not obliged to cut carbon emissions.

The Government has also drawn up a national strategy to deal with climate change, after consultations with the public. And it has set a national target to cut carbon intensity - that is, the carbon dioxide emissions per dollar of GDP - by 25 per cent from 1990 levels, by 2012. This is a measure adopted by the United States, one of the few industrialised countries which did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol.

The thinking behind it is that a country's carbon emissions should be measured in conjunction with economic growth.

Mr Charles Chong, who chairs the Government Parliamentary Committee for National Development and Environment, says there is now a realisation that climate change will have a direct impact on Singapore.

Just last month, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew revealed that the Government had contacted the Dutch to tap their expertise in building dikes, to prepare against future rises in sea levels.

As the global consensus on the need to cap greenhouse gases strengthens, so does the business case for investing in renewable energy sources, such as solar, wind and hydropower and biofuels derived from plants.

According to Clean Edge, a US research firm, the global market for clean energy was worth US$55 billion (S$88 billion) last year but could grow to US$224 billion by 2016.

The Economic Development Board projects that the clean energy sector will add $1.7 billion a year to Singapore's economy by 2015, and create 7,000 jobs. National Research Foundation chairman and former deputy prime minister Tony Tan concurred with this assessment, saying after a recent trip to Europe that clean energy could become a major engine of growth.

Beyond direct monetary gains, there is also a strategic reason for burnishing Singapore's green credentials. In his Budget speech this year, Second Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam said that, as the race to attract global talent heats up between cities, Singapore's ability to ensure a clean and green environment could well be a competitive advantage.

'The environment is an important part of the quality of life and an important part of being a first-class city. This is why we are doing so much in Singapore to promote good air and water quality,' he said.

A report by human resources firm Hudson last year showed that pollution was causing many foreign expatriates to leave Hong Kong. A third of them came to Singapore and one of the things that drew them here was the clean environment.

In line with such thinking, the Government introduced last October stringent emissions standards for all new diesel vehicles. Known as the Euro IV standard, engines with this standard reduces certain types of fine pollutants that are harmful to human health.

Singapore is also playing a leading role in efforts to address the regional haze problem due to forest fires in neighbouring countries.

Too fast or too slow?

STILL, the question that remains is what shade of green is Singapore turning? Has it converted to become a true believer in the global environmental cause or is its interest in green issues largely a matter of dollars and cents?

National University of Singapore political scientist Natasha Hamilton-Hart argues that it is the latter. In an academic paper published last year, she wrote that Singapore seemed to prioritise economic growth over environmental concerns.

'While Singapore's record in managing pollution and maintaining a green environment is very good for an industrialised city-state, the kind of environmentalism espoused by its policymakers is conditional,' she wrote.

She argued that Singapore's new-found interest in solar energy was due less to a genuine concern for sustainable development than to a realisation that it could reap rich rewards from investing in this area.

She also pointed out that most of the campaigns to promote energy efficiency - such as labelling schemes for electrical goods - were aimed at consumers rather than industries, which are responsible for 54 per cent of Singapore's carbon emissions.

Environmentalists like Dr Geh agree that Singapore can and should do more, starting with a review of the target it has set for itself in terms of cutting carbon intensity. A member of the committee on climate change that recommended the target, she now wants the bar raised, given the urgency of the global warming problem as set out by the latest IPCC reports.

In fact, according to figures from the National Environment Agency (NEA), Singapore has already met the target of a 25 per cent reduction in carbon intensity, five years ahead of schedule.

Given recent developments, Dr Geh says: 'Things have moved urgently ahead. I think we should not set that as a target but as a minimum.'

Singapore's total carbon emissions have continued to rise, from 21,832 kilotonnes in 1990 to 40,377 kilotonnes in 2005.

Singapore Environmental Council executive director Howard Shaw suggests doing more to push industry towards energy efficiency. Instead of just encouraging companies to conduct energy audits, for example, the Government could mandate them. Or put in place a tiered-energy tariff system to enforce mandatory reductions of carbon emissions by industries.

'It may be time to bite the bullet if people are not responding,' he says.

But the Government's bottom line is that it makes no sense - economic or otherwise - for Singapore to take the lead in the push to cut carbon emissions.

Articulating what he termed a realistic and pragmatic approach to going green, Mr Tharman said in his Budget speech: 'Singapore is tiny. What we do cannot make a significant difference to global warming or the ozone. 'If big countries like the US, China and India do not come on board, everything we do will be in vain.'

He added that if Singapore forged ahead to cut back on carbon dioxide emissions while other countries did not, 'it will increase our costs and affect our competitiveness'.

Dr Amy Khor, chairman of the National Climate Change Committee, defends Singapore's record with figures from the International Energy Agency. It found that Singapore's carbon emissions per capita compared favourably against several developed countries, and was in fact lower than those of Germany, Japan and Australia.

'Every country must play its part to address climate change. Singapore is committed towards addressing climate change in an environmentally sustainable manner that is compatible with our economic growth,' she says.

Nominated MP Edwin Khew, who owns a waste management company, agrees with the Government's stand. He opposes the use of legislation to cap emissions, as he believes it will cause difficulties for small companies without the funds to invest in new equipment and processes.

'It's better to work with each individually and take it one step at a time,' he says.

More continuity than change

WITH global attitudes towards the environment shifting, what Singapore has done is to respond by identifying what it must do to ensure its own survival as an island state, and to maximise the economic returns from the growing demand for green technologies.

This explains the recent spurt of interest and investments in clean energy and other technologies tied to sustainable development.

But the Government's own approach towards the environment remains largely unchanged. It is characterised by economic pragmatism and the belief that this country can afford to go green only to the extent that such efforts yield a measurable return in terms of growth and development.

And this will likely remain the case until and unless Singaporeans themselves convert en masse to the green cause and take it upon themselves to champion greater change.

aaronl@sph.com.sg

ADDITIONAL REPORTING BY KEITH LIN

Straits Times 17 May 07
Greenhouse gas emissions - tackle the non-industrial culprits
Letter from Lim Yew Jin, Research Fellow, NUS

I REFER to the Insight article, 'For S'pore, it pays to go green" (ST, May 12).

If for economic reasons the Singapore government is hesitant to impose caps on the industrial sector, which is responsible for 54 per cent of Singapore's carbon emissions, it can consider doing more to tackle the remaining 46 per cent.

HDB will soon develop Treetops, its first eco-friendly estate. However, there is a limit to how many new buildings HDB can build, and more effort should be channelled into greening existing HDB flats, which house more than 80 per cent of Singaporeans.

During estate upgrading, HDB can look into, for instance, installing green walls and/or roofs to reflect heat, rainwater collecting chambers, solar-powered water heaters for every block (residents can be asked to shoulder a portion of the cost entailed, since they will reap utility savings from such features). Even lifts and street lamps can be changed to energy-efficient ones.

Minister for Environment and Water Resources Yaacob Ibrahim told Parliament in March that all large government buildings, including polytechnics and ITEs, have to do energy audits by 2010.

He noted that the combined energy savings of government buildings that have already conducted audits is about $240,000 annually. If such substantial savings can be accrued, the scheme should be extended to most government buildings, except the very small ones.

All schools should conduct energy audits, since most school compounds are big enough to justify one.

Before solar power takes off in Singapore's energy generation sector, Singapore's public buildings can consider installing solar photovoltaic cells, and other cutting-edge clean energy technology, to encourage the proliferation and import of such technology and make it more affordable and attractive for industries and the public.

Finally, promoting mindset changes is one good way to battle climate change.

By simply eating less meat, relying more on public transport and supporting environmentally friendly products, individuals can achieve substantial emission reductions.

However, many Singaporeans are not sufficiently environmentally conscious, and more needs to be done to change this.

The recent complaints over having to pay for plastic bags for just one day each month show that many Singaporeans are missing the point that the initiative is not meant to make life difficult, but rather to remind us that we can actually do with fewer plastic bags and less packaging.
links

Related articles on Singapore: general environmental issues and climate change
about the site | email ria
  News articles are reproduced for non-profit educational purposes.
 

website©ria tan 2003 www.wildsingapore.com