Sometimes, we are hurt by comments that tell us the truth. We find them unpleasant even if they are spoken for our own good. We often ignore them or try to dispel them. Recently, there are some comments about Singapore’s efforts in energy and climate change:
Today reported the following comments by National University of Singapore Associate Professor Natasha Hamilton-Hart in response to whether Singapore could lead on climate change in Southeast Asia:
Prof Hamilton-Hart said while Singapore has “great potential”, the country lacked credibility.
“The target here is to reduce energy intensity, but that’s not the same as reducing emissions,” she said. “To get other countries involved, Singapore needs to show a willingness to commit to bringing down its emissions.”
Today reported comments by Mr Erik Thorsen, president and chief executive officer of Renewable Energy Corporation:
“The (solar) industry will have to take responsibility by lowering prices, with governments supporting with incentives.”
He added: “Singapore has a philosophy of not subsidising or subsidising very little. So, it’s very hard to make use of technologies and programmes that need more incentives to happen.”
Were all countries to share Singapore’s attitude of waiting for technology to become cost-competitive before adopting it, such technology could not have been accomplished, he argued.
The government has reasons for not doing the things mentioned in the comments - It’s the economy, stupid! The government cannot afford to bring down emissions significantly or give subsidies because it will distort the market and increase the business costs for companies and living costs for the people. It’s the typical ‘environment is important but economy comes first’ mindset and reasoning.
We understand the government’s worries for our business and living costs, and appreciate their good efforts to maintain a sustainable environment as described in the National Climate Change Strategy and National Energy Policy Report. But if we were to give the government a report card, it would say, “Has shown improvement but can do better”.
For Singapore to become a global clean energy hub or take the lead in the region on climate change, we have to do better. The comments have some truth in them and it’s time to relook the two issues below:
Using reduction in absolute carbon dioxide emissions as a target instead of carbon intensity
The national target in the National Climate Change Strategy is to reduce carbon intensity to 25% below 1990 levels by 2012. A reduction in carbon intensity (carbon dioxide emissions per dollar of GDP) does not necessary mean a reduction in the amount of carbon emissions. The problem of climate change is one of absolute concentrations of carbon dioxide and each country must reduce its absolute carbon emissions.
Singapore’s per capita emission is one of the highest in Asia and is similar to some developed countries. Most developed countries under the Kyoto Protocol are required to reduce absolute emissions by about 5% below 1990 levels. Likewise, we should set a target of reducing our absolute carbon dioxide emissions.
Work towards a Four National Switches energy portfolio
We diversified our water supplies and have our four national taps: local catchment water, imported water, NEWater and desalinated water. Similarly, we should diversify our energy sources and work towards an energy portfolio of four national switches: fuel oil, natural gas and two other renewable energy sources (solar, wind, biomass, tidal, etc). The intention is not to completely replace fossil fuel but to reduce our dependence on their import.
The cost of alternative renewable energy might be higher now but we should also take into account the future price of oil given the security and climate change concerns. Besides considering the cost of doing something, we should also consider the cost of not doing it.
Source: National Climate Change Strategy; National Energy Policy Report; Today. Image attribution: nic221.
