Here’s some of the survey results and our thoughts:

Gap Between Awareness and Action

These survey results show that most Singaporeans are concerned about climate change and its effect on Singapore, and feel that they play a part in taking action. The results are not surprising, as it is similar to responses from previous NEA and Gallup surveys, which show similar positive responses from Singaporeans on environmental and climate change issues.

We think that Singaporeans know about climate change as we are being exposed to local and international environmental news through the printed and online media, but we tend to stop at awareness and not translate that into action. The survey results show a concern about climate change and a desire to take action, but does not describe actual actions. We feel that there is still a big gap to be bridged between awareness and action in Singapore.

Although survey participants indicated their current practices to address climate change, we feel that the numbers are too positive and higher than the real situation. For example:

• 90.3% of survey participants indicated that they turn off electrical appliances at the main. In a 2010 LOHAS Study of the Singapore market, only 71% out of 1,000 participants say they unplug or tun off electronics.
• 80.3% of participants said they practise the 3Rs. In 2010, Singapore’s recycling rate is only 58% and the household participation rate in the National Recycling Programme is 63% in 2008.
• 76.8% say they use public transport when possible. A transport survey of 10,500 households in Singapore show that 59% of respondents used public transport.
• 72.3% choose appliances which carry an Energy Label. Since 2008, it is mandatory for all air-conditioners, refrigerators and clothes dryers to have the Energy Label, so Singaporeans are already choosing Energy Label appliances by default.

Like all our New Year resolutions and plans to lose weight and exercise more, we are always concerned, feel we need to take action, and feel we will be affected if we don’t take action. But in reality, we are swept by the waves of our busy daily lives and go on business-as-usual. We know and we care, but we don’t act, until it hurts.

The government has to find ways of helping Singaporeans translate their awareness, knowledge, concerns and desires into real actions.

Both Individual and Systemic Actions

The survey results show that 56.3% of Singaporeans think that individuals are mainly responsible for taking action on climate change, followed by government (26.3%) and businesses (10.6%). While it is important for the individual to take action on climate change, it is even more important to focus on systemic actions. We must understand that the main contributors of carbon dioxide emissions in Singapore are from the industry and building sectors – 70% in 2005.

We need systemic actions such as building sustainable urban infrastructure and green buildings; increasing the resilience of our energy, water and food security; redesigning and developing new ways of making and reusing products and materials; and conserving our biodiversity. These large systemic actions can only be achieved through the efforts of the government and businesses, but it can happen faster with individuals pushing for these actions to be discussed and implemented.

Everyone can play a part to tackle climate change in Singapore, through our own individual actions and through encouraging the government and businesses to take action in creating systemic changes.

Images: NCCS

The National Climate Change Secretariat (NCCS) is currently preparing the National Climate Change Strategy 2012 (NCCS-2012) publication, and is seeking public feedback and ideas.

The NCCS-2012 will provide a framework and overall strategy for Singapore to tackle climate change, and will outline policies and measures to reduce emissions, cope with the impact of climate change and build our capabilities.

The public consultation by NCCS involves conducting an online consultation exercise, focus group sessions and community forums. You can give your feedback and ideas via the NCCS website from now till 14 Oct.

Here are 12 ideas for the National Climate Change Strategy 2012, which was submitted by Green Future Solutions to NCCS:

1. Support a National Campaign on Climate Change Involving Different Stakeholders
2. Explore Soft Approaches to Create Behavior Change
3. Expand the Mandatory Energy Labelling Scheme to Other Common Products
4. Encourage Carpooling, Carsharing and Bikesharing
5. Provide Incentives for Commercial Transport Fleet Operators to Reduce Fuel Consumption
6. Set Clear Direction to Promote Cleaner Vehicles
7. Provide Practical Advice for SMEs to Measure and Reduce Energy and Carbon Emissions
8. Mandate Building Owners to Reduce Lightings at Night
9. Include SCEM Training Curriculum into Relevant Tertiary School Courses
10. Set Mandatory Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standard
11. Work Towards a Four National Switches Energy Strategy
12. Rethink the Use of Coal

If you wish to read more about the 12 ideas, you can download the report at the Green Future Solutions website.

Image: Screenshot of NCCS website

What are the political parties’ stand on the use of coal in Singapore and the implications on our carbon emissions target and our clean and green image?

Tuas Power’s coal plant

Read the chronology of the clean coal and biomass cogeneration plant by Tuas Power.

Tuas Power’s new coal and biomass plant at Jurong Island would start operations mid next year, and the company has signed a contract with Indonesia’s PT Bayan Resources to supply 13.36 million tonnes of sub-bituminous coal over the next 15 years from Kalimantan, and has also struck a deal with South Korea’s Samtam Co Ltd to supply coal. Tuas Power is also concluding a deal for the palm kernel, which makes up the 20% biomass component of the plant feedstock (the other 80% is coal).

If a calculation is done only for the coal supplied by PT Bayan Resources, and excluding the coal from Samtam Co Ltd and the palm biomass, the combustion of 13.36 million tonnes of sub-bituminous coal would emit about 24 million tonnes of carbon dioxide (using the Greenhouse Gas Protocol’s calculation tool).

Assuming the use of coal is spread out evenly over 15 years, the potential carbon emissions from the use of coal would be 1.6 million tonnes per year. In 2008, the total carbon emissions generated from Singapore is 36 million tonnes. Therefore, the use of coal by Tuas Power could contribute to 4.4% of Singapore’s total carbon emissions. For a comparison, the contribution by the consumers/households sector is about 9% in 2005.

When Tuas Power was asked: “When is the timeline, if any, to apply carbon capture technology, and where would the carbon be stored?”. Their reply was: “We have no plans to apply this technology in Singapore at this point in time. Carbon capture storage technology is still being developed, and we may explore the viability of its application in the future.”

16% below business as usual by 2020

In Dec 2009, the government has announced its commitment to reduce carbon emissions by 16% below business as usual levels in 2020 (only when a global agreement is reached), which means the government would have to reduce about 12 million tonnes of carbon emissions by 2020.

If the coal plant by Tuas Power operates for 8 years from 2012 to 2020, the potential carbon emissions is 12.8 million tonnes (not including the coal from Samtam Co Ltd and the palm biomass). Therefore, whatever measures to reduce emissions by 12 million tonnes by 2020 could be negated by the increase in emissions from the coal plant.

Economic Strategies Committee’s recommendation

The Economic Strategies Committee (ESC) submitted the report of its key recommendations to the Prime Minister in Feb 2010. In its report, the ESC highlighted several key strategies, one of which is for Singapore to become a Smart Energy Economy. One recommendation is that Singapore should explore coal and electricity imports to diversify both the fuel types and fuel source countries in our energy portfolio.

EDB study on coal gasification plant

EDB called for a tender on 8 Apr 2011 to conduct a feasibility study to provide recommendations for the Jurong Island version 2.0 Steering Committee. The study would evaluate the benefits and costs of a coal gasification plant to provide alternative feedstock for the supply of hydrogen and carbon monoxide for the energy and chemical industries on Jurong Island, including different scenarios for providing power and steam, and for having lower carbon footprint and being carbon-capture ready.

Questions

1. Has the government assessed the environmental impacts of using coal or conducted a life cycle assessment study of coal? How does it compare with natural gas?

2. Would the government require new power plants using coal to conduct an environmental impact assessment before construction?

3. Would approved coal plants be carbon-capture ready and where would the carbon dioxide be stored?

4. Would the use of coal lead to more carbon emissions as compared to using natural gas, and undermine the government’s own efforts to reduce emissions by 16% from 2020 business as usual levels?

5. Is the government funding research on carbon capture and storage or other technologies to reduce emissions from coal?

6. Would the use of coal tarnish Singapore’s reputation as a clean and green city, or contradict Singapore’s vision to be a clean energy hub?

7. Would the use of coal reduce the demand for LNG and challenge the viability of the government’s new LNG terminal?

Employment period: November 2010 – May 2011

Base: Singapore

Closing Date: 12 November 2010

The SE Asian Corporate Leaders Initiative on Climate Change (SEAChange) will convene CEOs and senior business leaders from leading Southeast Asian and international companies who believe that there is an urgent need to develop new and longer‐term policies to tackle climate change. Sponsored by the Centre on Asia and Globalisation at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy with support from the British High Commission of Singapore, SEAChange plans to host a half‐day roundtable for business leaders in early 2011. The roundtable will explore what policies and practices are needed to meet the scale of the threat posed by climate change, and to grasp the business opportunities created by moving to a low carbon economy.

Your role will be to project manage the organisation of and follow‐up from this roundtable.

You will be based in the Centre on Asia and Globalisation and will work closely with the British High Commission in Singapore; British Embassies throughout the region; and the Corporate Leaders’ Group on Climate Change based at the University of Cambridge, UK.

Key Responsibilities:

• Support the overall lead of the SEAChange initiative in organising a roundtable event for 20‐25 business leaders primarily, with participation from select government officials and civil society representatives.
• Manage relationships with invitees, keynote speakers and other participants;
• Contribute to the design of the roundtable programme;
• Liaise with partners, sponsors and suppliers of services for the event;
• Produce and distribute material relating to the roundtable;
• Lead on the logistical arrangements including booking meeting rooms, arranging catering and related requirements such as hotel accommodation; and
• Collate action points from the roundtable event and manage follow‐up.

Required education, skills, abilities:

• BA or BSc degree with proven interest and experience in environmental sustainability and climate change issues
• High level organisational skills and a demonstrated capacity to act independently within established guidelines using sound judgment and discretion
• Excellent verbal and written communication skills

Other: The position is only open to those with Singapore citizenship or PR.

Please send a cover letter and resume to: Sumi Dhanarajan – sppv142@nus.edu.sg by 12 November 2010.

Ground-Up Initiative (GUI) is organising Balik Kampung @ Bottle Tree Park on 10.10.10 to bring together multiple organizations to promote and educate the public on the importance of reducing our carbon emissions.

Learn how to start your actions locally so as to reduce CO2 emissions from your lifestyle, while not forgetting to have fun and party as we celebrate your efforts in making a difference for the climate. Come enjoy carbon-free time with your friends and family, accompanied with good food and an array of interesting activities like outdoor green-picnics, home composting workshops, garbage enzyme making, and many more.

Visit the event website or Facebook Group.

Green Future Solutions started its first green campaign called mywaterbottle on 22 April 2010, Earth Day. mywaterbottle is a non-profit campaign to encourage more Singaporeans to use their own refillable water bottles, instead of buying or taking single-use bottled water.

mywaterbottle Goals

mywaterbottle aims to achieve the following goals:

1. Create awareness on the environmental impacts of single-use bottled water and encourage people to use refillable water bottles.

2. Show that tap water is safe to drink and tastes just as good as bottled water.

3. Make it easy to choose and buy affordable refillable water bottles that are safe for both environment and health.

4. Build a map of mywaterbottle refillers (water coolers, cafes, restaurants, food and beverage outlets, etc) for easy and free refilling of water bottles.

5. Showcase events that encourage participants to bring their own refillable water bottles.

mywaterbottle Activities

mywaterbottle conducts the following activities:

1. Organise The Tap Water Challenge

mywaterbottle organises The Tap Water Challenge, which takes the form of a blind taste test for the public. The aim is to show that tap water is safe to drink and tastes just as good as bottled water.

The public is asked to taste two types of water – one is from a brand of bottled water and the other is tap water. They will select which one they prefer or feel that there is no difference between the two. The result is revealed after the taste test.

During The Tap Water Challenge, mywaterbottle also:

• Educate the public on the environmental impacts of single-use bottled water
• Encourage them to use refillable water bottles instead of buying or taking bottled water
• Ask them to show their support by signing the mywaterbottle pledge.

2. Sell Refillable Water Bottles

mywaterbottle provides an easy platform for Singaporeans to choose and buy refillable water bottles that are durable, affordable and BPA-free. 100% of the profits will go to fund water projects in developing countries that provide clean and safe drinking water.

3. Identify mywaterbottle Refillers

mywaterbottle identifies water coolers and invites cafes, restaurants, and food and beverage outlets to join as mywaterbottle refillers and provide free water to anyone with a refillable water bottle. The locations are published on a map of mywaterbottle refillers in Singapore.

4. Showcase Events that Support Refillable Water Bottles

mywaterbottle showcases events that encourage participants to bring their own refillable water bottles, and reduce the use of bottled water.

Images

mywaterbottle logo:

Contact

Eugene Tay, Founder of mywaterbottle

Email: hello@mywaterbottle.org

Website: http://www.mywaterbottle.org

Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/mywaterbottle

Twitter: http://twitter.com/mywaterbottle

About Green Future Solutions

Green Future Solutions is a Singapore-based business that promotes environmental awareness and action for a green future, through its network of green websites, events, presentations, publications and consultancy. For more information, visit http://www.greenfuture.sg.

The study covers six countries – China, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam, and has the following key messages:

… large-scale deployment of energy efficiency and low-carbon technologies can simultaneously stabilize East Asia’s CO2 emissions by 2025 and significantly improve the local environment and enhance energy security, without compromising economic growth.

… accelerating the speed and scaling up the efforts are needed to get onto a sustainable energy path. The window of opportunity is closing fast, because delaying action would lock the region into a long-lasting high-carbon infrastructure.

This shift to a clean energy revolution requires major domestic policy and institutional reforms. Governments can adopt climate smart domestic policies now to deploy existing low-carbon technologies while a global climate deal is negotiated … To fully realize the huge energy efficiency potentials in the region requires the removal of fossil-fuel subsidies and incorporation of environmental externalities into energy pricing as well as a concerted strategy to tackle market failures and barriers with effective regulations, financial incentives, institutional reforms, and financing mechanisms.

Developed countries need to transfer substantial financing and low-carbon technologies. To achieve this sustainable energy path, a major hurdle is to mobilize financing for the net additional investment of $80 billion per year over the next two decades. It is estimated that approximately $25 billion per year would be required as concessional financing to cover the incremental costs and risks of energy efficiency and renewable energy. In addition, substantial grants are also needed to build capacity of local stakeholders. The technical and policy means exist for such transformations, but only strong political will and unprecedented international cooperation will make them happen.

Source and image credit: Winds of Change – East Asia’s Sustainable Energy Future by The World Bank

The reason why we wrote the letter and sent it to the media is because we worry that The Rebound Effect could be happening with more people switching to other substitute activities that consume more energy during Earth Hour. We wanted to remind everyone that we must take action to conserve energy daily and ensure that our actions do not contribute to the problem we are trying to solve.

Unfortunately, it seems that our worries came true. Today Online reported today that:

This year, the 400 Earth Hour participants in Singapore contributed to electricity consumption falling by 23 megawatts on Saturday – a drop that represented a mere 0.021 per cent of average electricity consumption for Saturdays, according to the Energy Market Authority (EMA).

The total reduction was only roughly half that of last year’s Earth Hour, when power consumption fell 42 megawatts.

World Wide Fund for Nature’s Earth Hour campaign manager Ms Carine Seror said: “There could a number of factors – people could have turned off the lights but not the air-conditioning. We’ll be asking EMA to help us interpret the numbers.”

This year’s Earth Hour saw more participants and organisations taking action with electricity consumption dropping by 23 MW, but this was half of last year’s 42 MW drop. Why is this happening? This is serious and has deep implications for future actions. The organisers must find out what’s wrong.

Is it due to The Rebound Effect?

Our letter to the media:

Earth Hour is back again and takes place this Saturday. Earth Hour is not just about switching off lights; it’s about two key forces at work – The Asymmetry Principle vs The Rebound Effect.

The Asymmetry Principle as described by the energy economist Peter Tertzakian, states that a unit of energy saved at the consuming end (lighting a light bulb) amplifies into multiple units of energy saved at the source (at the natural gas well). This is due to the inefficiencies and energy losses in fuel production, electricity generation, electricity transmission, and conversion to useful work.

When you switch off your lights or appliances during Earth Hour, it is not merely the act of pressing a switch but the amplifying effects of conserving the energy resources upstream. However, energy conservation must be done by everyone daily to make a significant difference such that The Asymmetry Principle plays out. Annual Earth Hour actions will be insufficient to effect an actual change in the reduction of energy resources.

The Rebound Effect refers to the behavioral responses to the introduction of energy efficiency measures, which tend to offset the actual benefits of the measures. For example, if you replace a 20W light bulb with a 10W energy efficient bulb, the energy saving should be 50%. However, the actual energy saving is usually less than 50% because as you pay less for lighting, you tend to be less concerned with switching it off. The increased usage thus eats away the energy savings from the more efficient bulb.

The Rebound Effect can be adapted to explain that actual energy savings could be less than expected savings from energy conservation. When you reduce energy from one activity but use more energy by switching to other substitute activities, the actual savings is less than expected savings. Everyone should support Earth Hour but we have to remind ourselves that the Earth Hour activities we take part in should not be using more energy as compared to our usual activities.

We need to see more of The Asymmetry Principle and less of The Rebound Effect. We need more people to switch off their lights and reduce their energy consumption daily so as to amplify the energy savings at the source. We need less people to switch to other substitute activities that consume more energy. So remember for this year’s Earth Hour, everyone must take action to conserve energy daily and ensure that our actions do not contribute to the problem we are trying to solve.

my paper published an edited version of our letter today:

Today published an edited version of our letter on 30 Mar.

The switching off of lights is a symbolic act for everyone to take responsibility and fight climate change. Find out more about what you can do and pledge your support for Earth Hour.

Earth Hour has been successful in gaining support and participation over the past few years. For this year’s Earth Hour, we would like to remind everyone that Earth Hour is not just about switching off lights, it’s about two key forces at work – The Asymmetry Principle vs The Rebound Effect:

The Asymmetry Principle

In his book, The End of Energy Obesity: Breaking Today’s Energy Addiction for a Prosperous and Secure Tomorrow, energy economist Peter Tertzakian describes The Asymmetry Principle as:

the lopsided relationship between how much raw energy is available at the primary source — for example, at a natural gas well — and the small fraction of energy that is actually put to useful work at the consuming end — for example, in lighting a light bulb. The principle states that a unit of energy saved at the consumer level amplifies into multiple units of energy saved at the source. In effect, the asymmetry principle exposes the high levels of inefficiency in society’s energy systems and highlights the tremendous leverage offered by efficiency gains and conservation in mitigating source energy consumption.

He gave the example of a light bulb:

1. 100 energy units of natural gas at source
2. 40 energy units remaining due to conversion to electricity
3. 35 energy units remaining due to transmission losses
4. 2 energy units remaining due to conversion to light

In this example of a light bulb, reducing the consumption of one unit of energy (as light) actually saves the production of 50 units of energy (as natural gas) if you account for the inefficiencies and energy losses in fuel production, electricity generation, electricity transmission and thermal conversion to light.

To put it simply, when you switch off the lights and save X units of energy, you are actually saving more than X units of energy as the energy savings amplify back to the energy source.

Therefore, energy conservation or reducing your energy consumption plays an important role in reducing carbon emissions. When you switch off your lights or appliances at home during Earth Hour, it is not merely the act of pressing a switch but the multiplying and amplifying effects of conserving the energy resources upstream.

However, energy conservation must be done by everyone daily to make a significant difference such that The Asymmetry Principle plays out. Take the example of last year’s Earth Hour:

In Singapore, turning off lights and electrical appliances during Earth Hour saw a 42-megawatt drop in electricity demand. This is equivalent to 40 per cent of the electricity demand in Ang Mo Kio for that hour, said Energy Market Authority (EMA).

However, there was no real decrease in carbon emissions.

Since we only used 1 per cent less electricity as we normally would have in that hour, the generation companies (gencos) burnt just as much fuel as usual, said EMA.

- The New Paper

For actual reduction in the fuel usage and carbon emissions, everyone in Singapore (households and organisations) must play a part in energy conservation on a daily basis to reduce Singapore’s energy demand. Ad hoc or yearly Earth Hour actions will not be sufficient to effect an actual change in the reduction of energy resources and carbon emissions.

The Rebound Effect

The Rebound Effect usually refers to the behavioral responses to the introduction of new energy efficiency technologies or measures, which tend to offset the actual benefits of the new technology or measures. In other words, actual energy savings is less than expected savings.

For example, if you replace a 20W incandescent light bulb with a 10W energy efficient compact fluorescent bulb, the energy saving should be 50%. However, the actual energy saving is usually less than 50% because as you find that you pay less for lighting, you tend to be less concerned with switching it off. The increased usage thus eat away some of the energy savings from the more efficient light bulb.

Here, we will adapt The Rebound Effect to explain that the actual energy or carbon emission savings could be less than the expected savings from energy conservation. When you reduce energy or carbon emissions from one activity but use more energy or generate more emissions by switching to other substitute activities, then the actual savings is less than expected savings.

For example, you usually read a book on a Saturday night. But to support Earth Hour, you switch off your lights, thus saving X units of energy. In the dark, you can’t read so you switch on the TV and watch it for the whole night. The actual energy savings is thus less than the expected X units of energy savings.

Or instead of staying at home, you decide to drive your car to an event that celebrates Earth Hour. The additional carbon emissions could be more than the expected emission savings from switching off the lights.

You should still support Earth Hour but remember The Rebound Effect and remind yourself that the Earth Hour activities you take part in should not be causing more energy consumption or carbon emissions as compared to your usual activities.

The Asymmetry Principle vs The Rebound Effect

Earth Hour is really about The Asymmetry Principle vs The Rebound Effect. We need to see more of The Asymmetry Principle and less of The Rebound Effect.

We need more people to switch off their lights and reduce their energy consumption daily so as to amplify the energy savings at the source. We need less people to switch to other substitute activities that consume more energy or generate more emissions.

So remember for this year’s Earth Hour, everyone must take action to conserve energy daily and ensure that our actions do not contribute to the problem we are trying to solve.

Here is Eugene’s reply letter to the ST Editor:

I refer to the article, “Reign of old king coal is not necessarily over” by Grace Chua (ST Mar 19).

The article highlighted several environmental and technological uncertainties associated with the use of coal, which would be best answered by the government. The public needs to know the pros and cons of using coal, and it would help if the government openly and clearly explains its decision to use coal, while anticipating the coming carbon-constrained world, maintaining our clean and green image, and achieving our aim to be a clean energy hub.

For a start, the government could clarify the following:

1. Has the government assessed the environmental impacts of using coal or conducted a life cycle assessment study of coal? How does it compare with natural gas?

2. Would the government require the upcoming coal and biomass-fired power plant by Tuas Power or new power plants using coal, to conduct an environmental impact assessment before going ahead to construct?

3. Would the use of coal lead to more carbon emissions as compared to using natural gas, and undermine the government’s own efforts to reduce emissions by 16% from 2020 business-as-usual levels?

4. Is the government funding research on carbon capture and storage, or technology to reduce coal emissions so that they are on par with those from natural gas?

5. Would the use of coal tarnish Singapore’s reputation as a clean and green city?

6. Would the use of coal without carbon capture and storage technology contradict Singapore’s vision to be a clean energy hub?

7. Would the use of coal reduce the demand for LNG and challenge the viability of the government’s new LNG terminal?