3 Responses to the Sustainable Singapore Blueprint

The Sustainable Singapore blueprint report, “A Lively and Liveable Singapore: Strategies for Sustainable Growth”, was published last week by the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Sustainable Development (IMCSD). The strategies in the report were based on the rationale of “The Singapore Way”, which is described as follows:

For Singapore, sustainable development means achieving both a more dynamic economy and a better quality living environment, for Singaporeans now and in the future.

We need the economy to grow. This creates jobs, raises our standard of living, and yields the resources that we need to safeguard our environment. But we must grow in a sustainable way, or else a high GDP per capita will be achieved at the expense of our overall quality of life, and cannot be maintained over the longer term. Protecting our environment safeguards a high standard of public health for our people, and makes our city attractive to Singaporeans and foreigners alike.

We think there are probably three different responses to the Sustainable Singapore blueprint report.

Well Done and Pragmatic

One response from the group of people who accept and agree to “The Singapore Way” is that the IMCSD has done a commendable job in coming up with the recommendations and strategies for making Singapore a lively and liveable global city in 2030. Among many other strategies in the blueprint, Singapore would:

• Reduce our energy intensity (per dollar GDP) by 35% from 2005 levels by 2030
• Improve our recycling rate from 56% in 2008 to 70% in 2030
• Reduce total domestic water consumption from 156 litres per capita per day in 2008 to 140 litres per capita per day by 2030
• Target 80% of our existing building stock (by GFA) to achieve at least Green Mark Certified rating (minimum level of energy efficiency) by 2030
• Reduce energy consumption in the common areas of new estates and mature estates by 20% and 30% respectively
• Implement a large-scale solar test-bed for public housing spanning 30 precincts islandwide
• Achieve a modal share of 70% of journeys made during morning peak hours via public transport by 2020
• Provide 0.8ha of park land per 1,000 persons by 2030
• Implement a National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan to research, document and conserve biodiversity in Singapore
• Develop a City Biodiversity Index with international partners to promote biodiversity conservation efforts among cities globally

They applaud the comprehensive policies and bold targets to reduce energy and water consumption, reduce waste generation, increase green spaces and biodiversity, reduce business costs and increase R&D.

Although there is no mention of carbon reduction targets, it is understandable to them as according to “The Singapore Way”, the government will not increase business or household costs, and jeopardise our economic competitiveness. Singapore will be pragmatic.

It’s the Environment, Stupid

The second response is from a group of people who do not really agree with “The Singapore Way” because it seems that economic growth is taken as the central goal with the environment playing a supporting role. This is what they believe:

We see [today] a society and a Government whose primary objective is still the achievement of economic growth as conventionally understood and measured, with as much social justice and environmental protection as can be reconciled with that central goal. We envisage a society whose primary goal should be the wellbeing of society itself and of the planetary resources and environment that sustains us all, with economic objectives shaped to support that central goal rather than the other way around. – Blueprint for a Green Economy, Quality of Life Policy Group

They want to see policies that benefit the environment and society in the long run, even if some costs are incurred in the short-term. They hope to see a focus in the qualitative and not quantitative improvement of lives. They are not saying that we should return to caves and stop the economy, they are just trying to bring a greater focus back to the environment, which is actually sustaining the economy rather than the other way round.

No Comments

The third response is a non-response from the group of people who are not interested in a sustainable Singapore, or the group that are more concerned about other issues like Aware, swine flu and the rojak food poisoning, or the group of people who don’t care what the government has to say on anything.

What’s your response to the Sustainable Singapore blueprint that will guide us till 2030?

Image credit: Wordle.

Reflections on Singapore’s efforts in energy and climate change

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.