SINGAPORE is known to be a carbon sink, absorbing more carbon
dioxide than it releases into the atmosphere, said the editor of
the United Nations Habitat Report 2008/2009, Ms Rasna Warah.
She said that the city's intense use of greenery with its numerous
parks, gardens and nature reserves allowed
@@@@@@@@@@@@
we are a green city...
By Eugene on Nov 29, 2007 in
Government and Policies,
Energy
and Transportation, Climate
Change, Singapore |
2 Comments
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.
