Charles
As the Singapore mainstream media announced the government’s decision to reduce its carbon emission by 16 percent below ‘business as usual’ levels by 2020, the public is conned into believing that the PAP is doing something to combat or alleviate the effects of climate change. Here are seven contradictions that informs the reader on what is exactly missing in mainstream reports. This is the other side of the story that the Straits Times and TODAY fail to tell you.
First, this commitment is contingent on other states reaching a legally-binding agreement at Copenhagen. Given that the chairman of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has stated that the conference is unlikely to see any legally binding targets being set, it is questionable if the Singapore government would go ahead with the target.
Second, the government has yet to announce how these targets would be achieved. Given the urgency of the climate change issue and a lack of any official proposed polices, it is doubtful if the government can seriously implement any measures on time to meet its target even if it decides to do so.
Third, the reduction of 16 percent by 2020 based on current levels is considered low. According to Simon Tay of the Singapore Institute of International Affairs in a TODAY report, Singapore belongs to the Non-Annex One Countries of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. The recommendations for countries in that category are a reduction of carbon emissions between 15 to 30 percent. 16 percent as a target is a low expectation which barely scrape the bottom. This view was seconded by World Wildlife Fund Singapore Director, Amy Ho.
This is a short excerpt of his full article, which can be read on his blog here.
Read also: The Singapore Case for Carbon Tax
Read also: Little Green Dot
Read also: TOC Editorial: Electric dreams
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
actually, what is missing from singapore msm, is the climategate, haha.
what the singapoor government FAILED to do is to encourage natural resources such as solar/wind powers which is widely used in europe and CHINA as well
singapoor is so damn hot that practicaLLEE you just installed a solar charger outside your hdb flat..whoila instant hotwater @ zero cost…
meanwhile powergas singapoor inc would not want to hear such ideas…its will brin down PROFITs…
I think our Carbon Footprint is quite negligible.
Just consider the size of China & USA’s Carbon Footprint…
one must think of the shareholders.
if there are reductions in power usage, it means revenue will drop. So they will definitely increae electricity tariffs to even more absurb levels to make up the difference.
It is quite shameful that our pledged reduction is so small, and even more shameful that the government passes the buck (literally) to the end users. If Singapore takes such a low responsibility regarding its carbon footprint, what moral right then does our government (read: Lee Kuan Yew) has to be concerned about the effects of climate change?
CJ (#3) & Mr. E (#4):
If you read the original article, you’ll find that the author has addressed these two issues. He has a rather in-depth description of Singapore’s carbon emissions and the government’s stands.
Why doesnt our msm report on the CimateGate scandal?
———-
Over 31,000 scientist, 9 000 of whom are Phd holder disagree with the theory of global warming.
mad93 (#7):
Over 31,000 scientist, 9 000 of whom are Phd holder disagree with the theory of global warming.
I presume you’re talking about the Global Warming Petition Project. Note that it does not distinguish what field the scientist work in, which means that a molecular biologists can put his name down too (in fact the largest group comes from “general science and engineering”, whatever that means). Neither does it reflect the time scale in which the petition was collected, which may conflict with changing opinions of the issue (especially in the last decade). If this project were to be objective, it then has to contrast its number with the total number of scientists there are in the population (which I suppose is the US).
Wikipedia has a summary of scientific opinions with references to the relevant organisations. This may not be entirely objective as well, of course, since it may be subject to funding issues, political pressure and whatnot. But at least this puts something into contrast with the petition.
Climate change is not all production or transport . Having been in Singapore for a while and looking around at building and houses I find the building industry in Singapore prehistoric . Apart from maintenance being a dirty word here , and totally misunderstood . I see houses , flats , and other building being built with no double glazing or good wall and roof insulation , commercial building doors being left open with aircon running ( malls especially) no intermediate doors , this uses vast amounts of electricity which is made with fossil fuel . Very little use is made of solar panales , for hot water or electricity , and even tidal power could be used .
To add to this there are no government guidlines or more importanlly laws concerning energy conservation . Using the new light bulbs is good , but what about recycling , these bulbs conatin mercury.
Talking about recycling Singapore is very backward , it uses mainly incineration to get rid of rubbish , and don’t seem to have heard of DIOXIN from these plants even with filters , and what Dioxin does and has done in the world .
Also we should not be talking about recycling packaging , we should be talking about reducing packing , have new ideas . And no matter what anybody says we have to reduce production and consumption one day , governments will destroy the planet by concentrating on GDP ( like the Singapore government )
To end , the one big thing that the government has forgot is the biggest change due to climate change , lack of food and water , and don’t expect countries to use Osmosis for water , too energy consumming .
Didnt they just sold one of the power plant to a foreign business entity which plan to use coal to generate electricity. Was it not planned initially to have all power generation powered by cleaner natural gas? Will that result in transferring the ‘environment cost’ to the public as a form of ‘Energy Conservancy Tax’ as in the case of the existing Water Conservancy Tax in the monthly household PUB bills?
I am just curious to know.
Let’s get real!
In Singapore, anything or any idea which involves the govt. to fork out $$$ will be
NATOed, or otherwise in local term, ‘wayang’.
How they come out with this magic figure of 16% is anybody’s guess. In order to please some influential leaders,we also must chip in to wayang abit. Otherwise nobody will know there exist a tiny red dot called Singapore!
Point 1: Said in the newspapers already. Guess you never read the papers?
Point 2: Thanks for telling us that the government hasn’t told us so that’s why the newspapers haven’t told us.
To: @ 10) passer-by on December 5th, 2009 12.19 pm
“Didnt they just sold one of the power plant to a foreign business entity which plan to use coal to generate electricity. Was it not planned initially to have all power generation powered by cleaner natural gas? Will that result in transferring the ‘environment cost’ to the public as a form of ‘Energy Conservancy Tax’ as in the case of the existing Water Conservancy Tax in the monthly household PUB bills?”
For your info, not one power plant but three power stations, as follows:
Temasek Holdings, under Ho Ching, the second wife of PM Lee HL, sold:
1. Tuas Power Station to China Huan Eng Group for S$4.235 billion, as announced on its website on 14 March 2008.
2. Senoko Power to the Lion Power consortium of the Marubeni-led group (an International Group dominated by the Japanese) for $3.65 billion, as reported by Marissa Chew, Today Online, on 6 Sep 20008.
3. Power Seraya, on Jurong Island, to a subsidiary of Malaysia’s YTL Power International Bhd for an enterprise value of S$3.8 billion, as announced in the Straits Times on 2 Dec 2008.
That means all our three power stations (national strategic assets) have been sold to foreigners. Yet nobody in our Parliament nor our SAF even made a squeak about this national tragedy.
Therefore, Singaporeans are at the mercy of these foreign countries (China, Malaysia and Japan).
I wonder what else will be sold to foreigners in time to come? May be even our souls will be sold?
if PM Lee is serious about saving the environment, then he should not support Formula 1 (F1) which cause serious pollution, high energy consumption oil plus lightings to make night look like day).
As usual the PAP is money-minded, ministers most concerned about multi-million dollars salary plus bonuses and do one thing and say another. How to trust them?
I was wondering, Singapore’s a Non-Annex One country because we have a rather high carbon emission per capita right?
I do believe there’s some inaccuracy with that ranking system, because we’re an export oriented country. So all the industries (with all the emissions) actually produce goods which is consumed elsewhere in the world.
We’re taking the rap for other countries’ emissions because THEIR goods are produced here. Isnt that a little unfair?
“because we’re an export oriented country. So all the industries (with all the emissions) actually produce goods which is consumed elsewhere in the world.”
Isn’t it a consequence of an export oriented country where chasing GDP growth is something to be yearned.
“We’re taking the rap for other countries’ emissions because THEIR goods are produced here. Isnt that a little unfair?”
You can’t have a cake and eat it too. With or without the rap, dirty emissions not only in the form of carbon, even from other countries, may come back to haunt us in the pollutants we take into our body systems from the air and water.
Unless our body system evolves into having a better resistance to pollutants in times to come, it is like playing poker with the other countries to see who will stand last to be the one reducing it.
XiiAoGeNgEnX (#15):
I was wondering, Singapore’s a Non-Annex One country because we have a rather high carbon emission per capita right?
Not quite. Non-annex I countries contain developing countries as well as countries whose economy will be significantly affected by emissions control measures (which basically means countries which have an economy that rely heavily on oil). Singapore belongs to the latter category.
From the UNFCCC website:
Out of curiosity, does anyone know how are carbon emissions information gathered? Do they take sampling of the air from certain altitude, or just a estimation based on the number of vehicles, industries in the country?
I was wonder if such data would be ‘balanced’ by the amount of ‘green’ that the country has? The ‘green’ is the one mechanism that ‘treats’ CO2, converting it to oxygen after all. If it were included, maybe countries will start reforestation projects and/or start preserving what they have.
lobo (#18):
Out of curiosity, does anyone know how are carbon emissions information gathered? Do they take sampling of the air from certain altitude, or just a estimation based on the number of vehicles, industries in the country?
If you’re talking about carbon emissions per year, it’s calculated based on the primary activities of the country. It’s a rather complicated business, and the numbers may vary depending on how it is calculated, but in general they would not vary too much.
But if you’re talking about the composition of carbon in the air (which at the moment stands at 390 ppm), then I believe it’s measured directly from the atmosphere.
I was wonder if such data would be ‘balanced’ by the amount of ‘green’ that the country has? The ‘green’ is the one mechanism that ‘treats’ CO2, converting it to oxygen after all. If it were included, maybe countries will start reforestation projects and/or start preserving what they have.
That I’m not entirely certain, but I do believe that carbon emissions calculations take into account the amount of carbon sinks the country has. From Article 7 Paragraph 1 of the Kyoto Protocol,
I’m still on the fence on this whole global warming, i mean, climate change debate. While i agree pollution is a cause for concern, i’m not quite convinced that WE are the cause to this whole warming of the earth.
Historically, the earth’s climate has always been changing, our earth has been warming and cooling in the past even without all the carbon emission caused by man.
Secondly, it is a bit off that some seem to be pushing for the urgency of the copenhagen treaty. I don’t think most of us even know what the whole thing is really all about. Even our govt seemed to indicate that they will share the details with us ONLY after they sign the legal binding agreement, if they do sign.
All i’m seeing are ads and people telling me, “quick! we gotta do something, NOW, or else we’re doomed! our children is doomed!” or images of videos of smokes coming out of weird structures, portions of supposedly ice glaciers melting, seas are rising and polar bears dying. all scare tactics to me. is it not possible that the SUN was the cause of all these?
And lastly, it “seem” that this treaty is going to help poor african nations, but if you think about it, wouldn’t this treaty stunt the growth for the 3rd world countries to develop? and wouldn’t we in singapore lose most of our jobs since we depend on all these carbon emitting industries?
Look, i’m no scientist, but i think we need to look more into all of these. yes i actually believe that the earth seem to be warming, i’m just not convinced that carbon dioxide is the MAIN cause.
niagara (#20):
Coincidentally, the BBC has just released a very summarised set of climate change sceptics’ main arguments and the corresponding rebuttals. They addressed all the points you raised, though only very briefly.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8376286.stm
But I suppose that can be a starting point for further information.
I am of the opinion that climate change is really a scientific issue that can only be addressed by steps recommended by scientists.
The public does not know much on this issue. This leads to misconceptions about how to mitigate this issue effectively. I recommend the need of an open media which is sorely lacking in Singapore, however it would be good if all the writers and commentators do research on this issue. For example #2 ialsowantobeanmp says that because of heat we can gain solar energy at zero cost. This statement is not necessarily true as the mechanism of solar panels depends only slightly on heat. Heat helps but heat is not the medium of transfer in energy, in such a mechanism. It is not very workable in cloudy Singapore. However, if you were to say that soalr panels be used to power daylights or park lights as they are already doing it is feasible.
To #20 Niagara, I agree wholeheartedly with your approach. However, theoretically, carbon dioxide seems to be the most plausible cause. This can never be proven. Scientists can only postulate.
Also to note: sudden climate changes happened in the past and there has been evidence that organisms had been able to adapt. We don’t really know how but it may come at a big cost.
#8 Jackson Tan has gotten it right to say that scientists with authority on this matter should be the ones we listen to and not the molecular biologists (or any activist/random commentors on theonlinecitizen). It is unfortunate that some of the scientists researching on this matter may be tweaking the data due to their passion taking the better of them. I am wondering, since their passion drove them to doing such an act, doesn’t that mean that they are more convinced with their results than anything else? What good does it do to them? It’s not like Prof Hwang, these people are not getting glory. The work they do is making them unpopular and seem anti-establishment. What good does that serve themselves?
thank you very much for the link, Jackson Tan. now my eyes are open. I hope copenhagen will not fail, if not the sea will rise and the sharks will eat me. i think we all should pay the climate tax, then we will be saved! :)
This is ClimateGate
http://gigomole.blogspot.com/2009/12/climategate-small-critters-view.html
http://gigomole.blogspot.com/2009/12/climategate-science-is-dying.html
http://gigomole.blogspot.com/2009/12/climategate-whos-who.html
http://gigomole.blogspot.com/2009/12/climategate-unravelling-academic.html
Everyone is using air con powered by burning fuel. Solar energy will certainly be cleaner and greener since Singapore is not endowed with the climate, resources and geo conditions to tap wind and water sources.
To encourage people to opt for energy saving living, the government should offer rebate or tax incentives for using reflective windows, roof and wall insulation. Alternatively, include these in upgrading of flats FOC or grant subsidises.
Glassy (#24):
With regards to environmentally friendly construction in Singapore, the Building and Construction Authority has this Green Mark scheme. This scheme is a voluntary programme in which building owners can submit their buildings for rating by the BCA. Criteria is based on several factors such as energy and water footprint as well as “green” features.
Unfortunately, that’s as far as the scheme goes. There are no subsidies, as far as I know of, for buildings which is rated highly. The argument, I believe, is that a green building naturally helps cut costs after a few years (e.g. in terms of energy savings). Moreover, some environmentally-conscious companies (sadly, most of which are overseas-based) may demand a building to be of a certain rating before renting their offices there.
You want to save energy? Just look at offices. Some centralised aircons are running at 21 degrees, to the point that ppl are wearing sweaters.. in our country!
Just have all aircons tune to 25 degrees, things would be much better. If ppl complain about being hot, ask them if they prefer in the 25 degree aircon room or the outside 32 degrees.