Debated in Parliament on 13 Sep 2021.
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time".
There are two parts to the Bill. I will start with the first part on reducing the emissions of hydrofluorocarbon, or HFC, refrigerants from RAC equipment. RAC stands for refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment.
In recent months, the world witnessed the devastating impacts of climate change, from the unprecedented heatwaves in North America, to the terrifying floods in Europe and China.
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Christopher de Souza) in the Chair]
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, in its latest report, warned of catastrophic impacts from climate change unless the world takes urgent action to curb greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and I am heartened by the strong support given by this House earlier this year in acknowledging climate change as a global emergency and a threat to mankind.
Every tonne of GHG reduced can and will lead to tangible improvements to our environment. Singapore will play our part to meet ambitious GHG emissions reduction targets. These are set out under the 2030 Nationally Determined Contribution and our Long-Term Low-Emissions Development Strategy under the Paris Agreement. Earlier this year, we launched the Singapore Green Plan 2030, our national roadmap towards sustainable development. Our plans are not static. We will review our plans and continue to raise our climate ambitions as low-emission technologies become available to achieve net zero emissions as soon as viable.
One significant contributor to GHG emissions is the use of RAC equipment. Cooling is essential in our hot and humid climate but it is energy-intensive and generates carbon emissions. RAC equipment also use HFCs as refrigerants and emit HFCs into the atmosphere. These are potent GHGs which trap more heat than carbon dioxide.
This is why MSE announced a comprehensive package of measures at the Committee of Supply debates last year to reduce HFC emissions.
First, to shift the market towards climate-friendly RAC equipment. This addresses the root cause, by avoiding the use of certain classes of HFC refrigerants that have the most adverse impact on the climate.
Second, to raise the industry’s competency in handling HFC refrigerants during the installation, maintenance and decommissioning of the RAC equipment.
Third, to mandate the recovery of spent HFC refrigerants. HFCs from discarded RAC equipment will have to be collected and treated for reuse or destroyed, instead of being vented into the atmosphere.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I will now go through the new Part 10A of the Bill, which will give effect to the measures I have described.
First, we will phase out RAC equipment using refrigerants with high Global Warming Potential, or GWP in short, where climate-friendly alternatives are already available. GWP is a measure of the warming effect of a gas relative to carbon dioxide. For example, the typical refrigerant used in chillers, R134a, has a GWP of 1,300. In comparison, carbon dioxide has a GWP of one. The higher the GWP, the more heat the refrigerant will trap.
From 1 October next year, NEA will not allow the supply of RAC equipment with high GWP, starting with household air-conditioners that use refrigerants with GWP of more than 750; and household refrigerators and commercial water-cooled chillers that use refrigerants with GWP of more than 15.
Climate-friendly alternatives for such equipment are widely available. They are typically more energy-efficient and users can enjoy energy cost savings, too. For households, there is no cost difference in switching to climate-friendly refrigerators and air-conditioners. For commercial users, low-GWP water-cooled chillers cost 15% more on average, but as they are more energy-efficient, their life-cycle cost savings more than make up for the higher upfront cost.
In our industry consultations, most suppliers and importers of RAC equipment have affirmed that they are able to supply climate-friendly models. Countries in the EU, as well as the US and Japan, have implemented similar measures to curb HFC emissions. Major exporters of RAC equipment, such as the US and China, are also shifting towards more climate-friendly refrigerants.
These measures will be effected through sections 40B to 40D, which allow the Minister to prescribe the above RAC equipment as goods to be regulated and the requirements that they have to satisfy to be supplied in Singapore.
Sections 40E to 40G lay out the requirements for suppliers to register themselves and their RAC equipment with NEA. Suppliers will need to register themselves once, whereas the registration of the regulated RAC equipment will be valid for three years. This allows NEA to regularly review the standards of these RAC equipment and ensure that the equipment sold in Singapore is climate friendly.
Second, to raise the industry’s competency in handling refrigerants, we will regulate companies that carry out regulated GHG works. GHG works involve the use or handling of any GHG, such as the installation, maintenance and decommissioning of RAC equipment.
Companies that carry out any regulated GHG works will be required to establish and maintain policies, procedures and processes to carry out the regulated GHG works safely to minimise emissions. They must keep accurate records of those regulated GHG works and provide the records to NEA upon request. Regulated companies must provide their employees with adequate and properly maintained equipment to carry out the regulated GHG works and deploy at least one competent technician to supervise or carry out such works.
To be certified as competent, technicians must attend a training and certification programme that will equip them with the necessary skills to minimise HFC emissions when carrying out regulated GHG works. NEA has worked with Temasek Polytechnic to roll out a course on handling commercial water-cooled chillers this month. The training programmes will uplift the capabilities of technicians and harmonise HFC handling practices across the industry.
Competent technicians will need to comply with the policies, procedures and processes set out by their respective companies as well as prescribed statutory requirements.
For a start, these requirements will only apply to companies handling commercial water-cooled chillers, as these chillers have much larger refrigerant capacities than household air-conditioners. Companies handling household refrigerators and air-conditioners will not have these requirements imposed on them but are encouraged to certify their technicians.
Sections 40K to 40P will allow the Minister to prescribe the classes, descriptions or types of GHG works to be regulated and the requirements for companies carrying out such regulated GHG works, including registering themselves with NEA. The responsibilities of competent technicians are set out in section 40Q.
Third, we will introduce measures to minimise the venting of spent refrigerants into the atmosphere. The Bill will introduce a related amendment to the definition of "industrial waste" in section 2 of the Environmental Public Health Act to classify spent refrigerants as "industrial waste". With this change, spent refrigerants recovered during RAC equipment servicing and disposal must be sent for proper treatment by licensed toxic industrial waste collectors.
The Director-General will be empowered to administer and enforce the new Part 10A and to conduct the necessary inspections, tests and surveys to make sure that the requirements in the Part are complied with. These powers are set out in sections 40S to 40W.
The Director-General will also be given the power to grant waivers from specific requirements, as set out under section 40Y. These waivers will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
The key offences set out in Part 10A include carrying out regulated activities without registering with NEA, supplying non-compliant GHG goods that are regulated goods, failing to meet stipulated requirements, failing to provide records relating to regulated goods or regulated GHG works and falsifying data. The penalties for these offences are pegged to similar offences under the Energy Conservation Act.
An appeal process, detailed in sections 40J and 40R, will also be put in place with regard to certain decisions of the Director-General concerning matters, such as registration. Reconsideration can be sought from the Director-General in the first instance. Thereafter, the person may appeal in writing to the Minister, whose decision will be final.
These three HFC mitigation measures are expected to reduce HFC emissions from the regulated equipment by around half by the year 2030. We can expect further abatement beyond 2030 when the current stock of less climate-friendly equipment is completely phased out.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I will now move on to the second part of the Bill which will introduce amendments to improve construction contractors’ compliance with the no-work rule on Sundays and public holidays.
Singapore is a dense, highly urbanised and vibrant city, and some amount of noise is normal and inevitable. This includes noise from construction projects which are needed to build our homes, MRT lines and our healthcare facilities.
Over the years, we have introduced a suite of measures to manage construction noise.
First, NEA stipulates maximum permissible noise limits for construction sites, taking reference from the World Health Organization’s guidelines. Construction sites within 150 metres from residential buildings and noise-sensitive premises, such as hospitals, are subject to more stringent noise limits. Contractors must install noise meters at the nearest affected premises and monitor the noise levels regularly.
Second, in 2011, we implemented the no-work rule to provide residents with greater quiet on Sundays and public holidays. No work is allowed on these days at construction sites located within 150 metres of any hospital, home for the aged sick or residential building, though NEA may grant permits for quieter forms of work.
Third, from April 2014 to March this year, NEA disbursed a total of $8.3 million in grants to incentivise contractors to adopt quieter construction equipment and methods. These include using quieter piling and hacking equipment, and installing noise barriers and enclosures.
While most contractors comply with noise management measures, there is a small group of contractors that has continued to violate the no-work rule. From 2016 to 2020, NEA prosecuted an average of 3% of construction sites, or around 150 sites, for first-time violation of the no-work rule each year. Twenty-two percent of this group would go on to repeat the offence.
When complaints on construction noise are received, NEA strives to respond swiftly to address the noise disturbance, especially on Sundays and public holidays. However, there are limitations to the current enforcement approach, as violations of the no-work rule can only be confirmed through physical site inspections by NEA officers. This is resource-intensive and not always effective, as the breach of the no-work rule could have stopped by the time NEA officers reach the construction site.
This is where technology can make a difference. From 1 October next year, we will impose electronic video surveillance on the small subset of offenders to deter further violations of the no-work rule and improve NEA’s operational effectiveness.
Mr Deputy Speaker, let me outline the key features of the new section 28A. It empowers the Director-General to require the owner or occupier of a construction site who has contravened the no-work rule to install, maintain and operate an electronic video surveillance system at their own cost. This includes visual monitoring devices, such as closed-circuit television cameras.
The notice issued to no-work rule offenders may specify the type of surveillance system required; the number of monitoring devices to be installed and where; the part of the construction site to be recorded; and the duration for which the surveillance system must be operational. The owner or occupier must store the recordings for the period specified in the notice and provide NEA with access to any stored recording so as to facilitate remote monitoring and enforcement.
The penalties for non-compliance are aligned with those for similar requirements in the Act, such as compliance with noise limits and installation of noise meters. Section 42 is amended to provide for appeals to the Minister against a notice issued by the Director-General under section 28A.
We recognise that the construction sector is facing significant challenges during this pandemic, such as a manpower crunch arising from border control measures and higher costs of construction materials. The new requirement will not affect the vast majority of compliant construction sites. It will only be imposed on the small number of construction sites that have violated the no-work rule and it is meant to deter further violations.
Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill marks another milestone in our efforts to tackle climate change and maintain a quality living environment for Singaporeans. The first part of the Bill will ensure that we meet Singapore’s cooling needs in a responsible manner, by using climate-friendly RAC equipment and building up the industry’s competency in handling these equipment. The second part of the Bill will maintain a conducive living environment by strengthening enforcement on offenders of the no-work rule. We will continue to work with the industry and other key stakeholders to regularly review our approach of managing construction noise, taking into account public feedback, international best practices and our local context. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.
*Question proposed.*
Sir, this Bill tackles two distinct but important problems: noise and greenhouse gases. Residents will be happy to hear that the Bill empowers NEA to more effectively ensure that construction sites remain quiet on Sundays and public holidays. Singaporeans should also be happy that the Bill empowers the Government to better mitigate climate change, given that Singapore is getting warmer much more quickly than the rest of the world.
Sir, I have three clarifications about this Bill.
My first point relates to our efforts to reduce HFCs. Reducing HFC emissions, which make up about 7% of Singapore’s emissions, will contribute to our climate mitigation efforts and I wholeheartedly support this move. HFCs have nearly 12,000 times the warming potential of carbon dioxide. And Singapore is emitting such gases more than ever before, a 30% increase from 2014 to 2016, based on the latest available data. Things might be getting worse, not better.
I am glad we are doing more, but my question is: why are household RACs and commercial water-cooled chillers the only equipment being regulated? I understand that these contribute to about half of the emissions and the question is: what about the other half? When can we expect to address emissions from the remaining types of equipment?
Beyond using the stick, can we offer more carrots, especially in terms of the remaining types of equipment that are currently not regulated? Can we increase grants for businesses to encourage adoption of cooling equipment with lower global warming potential? All these while we work on stricter regulations and an eventual ban on the remaining types of equipment which are currently not regulated.
My second clarification is about the requirements for becoming a competent person for carrying out greenhouse gas work. Training and certification are important to upskill our workforce, improve quality of services and reduce emissions by preventing leakage of greenhouse gases. However, training and tests are often conducted in English, which not all of our existing technicians may be fluent in, causing them to be disadvantaged. It is important that certification is accessible and fair so that we improve our workforce rather than cause some to be excluded.
My third and final clarification relates to the control of construction noise. In the post-COVID-19 world, more activities are taking place from the home, such as remote learning and working. Can the Minister provide an update on its review of construction noise limits and also consider whether we can have even stricter construction noise limits on Saturdays? This will give families more quiet time to rest and recover over the weekend. Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the Environmental Protection and Management Act (EPMA), originally enacted in 1999, is one of a number of key pieces of environmental legislation in Singapore, with a noteworthy recent addition being the Carbon Pricing Act which was introduced in 2018 and came into operation in January 2019.
The EPMA is the primary regulation for the environmental control of pollution and waste, including for hazardous substances in Singapore. What I believe to be noteworthy in this amendment Bill is clause 3 of the Bill which inserts a new Part 10A, comprising new sections 40A to 40Y, relating to the control of greenhouse gases. After all, anthropogenic greenhouse gases, with their far-ranging environmental and health effects, are just about the most hazardous substances nations around the world have to grapple with today.
The Bill goes into significant technical detail about the regulation, monitoring, prohibition and enforcement against a subset of greenhouse gas goods and related activities. However, I believe it is also crucial that we do not lose sight of the big picture in terms of the urgent and bold actions that the Government, as well as all other governments around the world, have to undertake to curb greenhouse gas emissions adequately, in order to deal with the existential threat of climate change.
Today's debate is thus timely in the context of the recent August release of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or IPCC's sixth Assessment Report or AR6 and as nations around the world prepare for COP26 at the 26th UN Climate Change conference coming up in November this year. UN Secretary-General António Guterres called the recently published IPCC report "a code red for humanity", as it confirmed that we are observing unprecedented changes in the Earth’s climate "in every region and across the climate ecosystem".
It makes clear that the world faces a frightening future, even if – and that is a big "if" – the global economy is decarbonised rapidly. I would thus like to spend some time sharing more about the key implications of this report and also what we should do in light of these implications, especially since this could have serious repercussions on a coastal island nation that is our home.
In 2019, atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2) concentrations were higher than at any time in at least two million years. Across all scenarios considered by the IPCC, global temperatures will continue to increase until at least the mid-century. In fact, we are now expected to reach this 1.5 degree celsius tipping point earlier than expected. To limit warming to 1.5 degree celsius with no or limited overshoot, net global CO2 emissions need to fall by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030 and reach "net zero" by 2050. Unless immediate, rapid and large-scale action is taken to reduce emissions, the average global temperature is likely to reach or cross the 1.5 degree celsius warming threshold within 20 years.
Unfortunately, however, some climate changes are already locked in. Hot extremes have become more frequent and more intense across most land regions since the 1950s, while cold extremes have become less frequent and less severe. Over the next 2,000 years, the global mean sea level will rise by about two to three metres, even if warming is limited to 1.5 degree celsius, with the effect irreversible for millennia.
At this point in time, remaining carbon budgets for a 50% chance of limiting warming to 1.5 degree celsius and two degree celcius are estimated at 500 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide (GtCO2) and 1,350 GtCO2 respectively. With global emissions currently at a little more than 40 GtCO2 a year and if continued, the budget would be exhausted in a mere 12 years.
Singapore is certainly not spared from the effects of a higher global temperature. Even in a 1.5 degree celsius warmer world, there will an increase in the number of unprecedented weather events with disasters to become more frequent and intense. Should emissions not come down to net zero by around 2050, there will be even more punishing heatwaves, severe coastal flooding events and bouts of heavier rain. As it is, Singapore has already seen record rainfalls in January, April and August. The recent memory of flash floods in August this year is a very sombre reminder of how things are no longer the way it used to be. What does this mean for daily life in Singapore?
Firstly, in terms of temperature, Singapore has already experienced warming higher than the global average because of the urban heat island effect. Local temperatures are 1.8 degree celsius higher than they were in 1948, as indicated in the MET Service database. In contrast, global temperatures have warmed by about 1.1 degree celsius from pre-industrial times, which ended around 1850.
The IPCC has identified Southeast Asia as a region experiencing severe heat waves, which used to occur once every 50 years but have become five times more frequent. Tropical cyclones are also getting stronger, severe droughts are happening 1.7 times as often and fire seasons are increasing in duration and intensity.
Secondly, bouts of rain could become more intense and frequent with each additional degree of warming. Southeast Asia would likely experience this, resulting in flash floods if the ground is covered with concrete and if drainage systems are overwhelmed, as in Singapore’s case recently.
Thirdly, sea level rises in Asia, especially critical to low-lying coastal regions like Singapore, are projected to increase faster than global average, alongside coastal area loss and shoreline retreat.
While there has been much focus on CO2, the IPCC also assessed the possibility of actively targeting and removing methane as part of the pathway to limiting warming. While methane is less prevalent than CO2, it is more than 80 times more powerful at trapping heat over the first 10 to 20 years in the atmosphere.
I had earlier filed a Parliamentary Question on whether the Government has conducted a study to assess the amount of external methane emissions associated with natural gas imported into and consumed in Singapore, across both piped natural gas and liquefied natural gas (LNG). This is critical because even though methane emitted directly from Singapore is low, the use of natural gas as a source of energy could indirectly contribute significantly to methane emissions through upstream fugitive emission leakages, if these are not properly controlled. As a responsible consumer of natural gas, be it piped or LNG, it is important that we uphold strict monitoring and verification standards and promote the adoption of emission reduction technologies.
Having spoken much about the AR6 findings and their implications for Singapore, Mr Deputy Speaker, I do have a number of clarifications I would like to raise about the Bill itself.
To begin with, I note that the Bill under section 40A provides certain definitions on GHG goods, GHG works and other interpretations of the new Part 10A. The first clarification is about sections 40A and 40B which deal with the power of the Minister, after consultation with NEA, to prescribe any class, description or type of GHG goods to be regulated.
To provide greater visibility to businesses and consumers, I would like to ask the Minister if there is currently a set of goods by which the Ministry and NEA plans to prescribe and regulate as GHG goods once the Bill is passed. If there is not such a list yet, would the Minister and agency consider putting a plan for such a list such that, by the time the Act comes into force, the Government may facilitate a swift recognition of such goods? How much of such goods and works that are available in our market today will now be subject to these amendments? In addition, could the Minister provide clarity on whether these GHG goods or works were originally excluded from the Carbon Pricing Act and if so, what is the assessment of the cost to measure and report these GHG goods compared to the amount of carbon tax that potentially could be collected?
Furthermore, I would like to ask the Minister what is the Ministry’s assessment of any possible impacts this amendment and the classification of the new GHG goods or works will have on our companies, such as the air-condition, chiller and equipment manufacturers as well as industries, such as the semiconductor manufacturing industry, which uses fluorinated gases?
Secondly, under section 40C, an importer or manufacturer has to be a registered supplier for these regulated goods. I would like to ask the Minister when will the regulation of such businesses commence; and in the future, should a new GHG good be added to the list of regulated GHG goods, what is the lead time for businesses to respond accordingly?
Thirdly, under section 40D, there are proposed restrictions on supplies and imports of regulated goods. I would like to ask the Minister how the thresholds of global warming potential are being determined for the regulated goods, and how often would NEA or the Director-General of Environmental Protection plan to review the GWP threshold and its basis for restriction of supply? For example, according to the NEA website, the typical refrigerant used in chillers is R134a, which has a GWP of 1,300. The climate-friendly alternative is R1233zd, which has a GWP of just one. Based on what is disclosed, the NEA will, from the fourth quarter of 2022, restrict the supply of certain air-conditioning equipment with a GWP of more than 750 and certain refrigerators and chillers with GWP of more than 15. How much of a decline in the percentage or volume of GHG emissions is this restriction expected to lead to?
Finally, my fellow Sengkang Member of Parliament He Ting Ru asked a Parliamentary Question about whether MSE has initiated a review of Singapore's ratification of the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol and if so, what is the outcome of this review. To which, Minister Grace Fu shared that a review is ongoing and the decision for Singapore to ratify the Kigali Amendment will be finalised after consultation with key stakeholders.
I would like to ask if the current Bill amendment is a part of the process towards ratifying the Kigali Amendment and if the Minister can provide a timeline for the review as to whether Singapore will decide to join the 124 countries that have thus far already ratified the agreement.
In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this Bill and its introduction of legislative safeguards and controls over greenhouse gases in Singapore. Yet, this Bill is but one of the many steps that Singapore will have to take in order for us to advance our efforts in addressing climate change.
As I shared in my speech on the Climate Motion earlier this year, even as a small island-state, Singapore has always been daring in our vision for the future. Climate change should be no different. The science has spoken and there is no alternative except to urgently commit to reversing the trend of rising emissions. We can, should and must do more.
My fellow Sengkang colleague, Ms He Ting Ru, again had asked in a Parliamentary Question whether the Government plans to review Singapore's net zero emissions target and set a definitive timeline to achieve net zero emissions. Member Louis Ng too had asked in a Parliamentary Question whether the Government would review and bring forward the plans to reach net zero emissions.
I ask that we be that bright green spark and show the world that even in spite of our constraints, we can set a bold, ambitious and specific emissions reductions target that aligns with the global goal of reaching net zero by 2050 and not let it be that because of our constraints, "if"s and "only if"s dominate our vocabulary.
Mr Desmond Choo.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill. Climate change is affecting every country in the world and Singapore is not spared. The IPCC report published last month is a sobering reminder of the disastrous outcomes we can expect in 2050 if planet-warming emissions, also known as Greenhouse Gases (GHGs), do not come down to net zero.
I believe that the proposed amendments have balanced both the interests of businesses and protecting the environment. For example, the methods to appeal against a Director-General's (DG) decision are not onerous, whereby aggrieved persons may simply apply to the DG by way of a written notice for reconsideration of the decision.
Ultimately, the objective of the Bill is to regulate GHG emissions in Singapore and this will eventually benefit all stakeholders.
I would like to highlight three areas of the amendments and related suggestions for the Ministry's consideration. I believe that these suggestions will allow for a more calibrated approach in ensuring that businesses comply with the amendments.
First, on the implementation of a register of suppliers, regulated goods and registered GHG entities.
These provisions ensure that the Ministry retains oversight of all GHG goods and GHG-related stakeholders. This is particularly valuable where GHG goods are subsequently found to have been falsely reported as conforming to prescribed standards. The register will benefit suppliers of GHG goods in allowing them to recalibrate their business models where appropriate.
Can we presume that similar to the prescribed regulated goods and suppliers under the Energy Conservation Act, that the register under the amendments will also be made available online?
Second, on the offences relating to the falsification of data in the proposed section 40X. The falsification of data to the DG would render the objective of the Act nullified. For example, suppliers would be able to supply GHG goods that blatantly fall afoul of the prescribed limits of emissions. Furthermore, to ascertain the accuracy of every piece of information or data received would be operationally burdensome on the Ministry.
At present, a conviction for this offence attracts a fine of $5,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or both.
I have two suggestions for the Ministry's consideration. Could the Ministry impose a minimum fine for an offence under section 40X? This will encourage businesses to take extra effort to ensure the accuracy of information to be submitted to the Ministry.
Additionally, could the Ministry adjust the maximum term of imprisonment under section 40X from three to six months? This harmonises the maximum term of imprisonment to that of section 177(1) of the Penal Code. The said section prescribes that it is an offence to give false information to a public servant if one is legally bound to do so.
Lastly, I am concerned about the hardships SMEs and smaller businesses may face in complying with the amendments. Doing our part for climate change has a cost and the cost could be placed upon these SMEs unduly, especially in the short term. While the obligations under the proposed amendments will help to combat climate change, they will be especially onerous to smaller businesses. For example, section 40D(4)(d) obligates suppliers of GHG goods to ensure that the goods are accompanied by information relating to their environmental impact.
To this end, I have two suggestions to make.
Firstly, I hope the Ministry will consider a transitionary period in relation to the new obligations under the amendments. While the impact of these obligations may not be large for individuals or larger businesses, I fear that SMEs may be adversely impacted in the short run. This is worsened by the fact that some businesses may still be suffering from the effects of the pandemic.
The new obligations imposed on related businesses are akin to new skillsets for their workers. An appropriately timed transitionary period will allow businesses the required time to adequately comply with the new obligations and retrain their workers.
Secondly, I propose for the Ministry to assist SMEs in complying with the new obligations. The Ministry can explore working with the unions and trade associations in providing practical information to affected SMEs. Furthermore, while the definition of who qualifies as a competent person has yet to be published, the union stands ready to conduct training programmes to ensure affected SMEs can comply with this new obligation with ease.
Perhaps the Ministry can also consider making such training courses approved courses under the SkillsFuture scheme for jobseekers who wish to update their skillsets.
Deputy Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding the above, I support the Bill. These amendments feature a judicious, multi-pronged approach in targeting a key driver of climate change. Every one of us, businesses and consumers alike, have an important role in creating a sustainable Singapore for our future generations. I am confident that by passing the Bill, the House will further cement its commitment towards a greener future for Singapore.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, when an activity such as a firm's production of a good imposes a cost on the rest of society, which it does not pay for, for example, when it emits greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, the marginal social cost exceeds the marginal private cost.
In other words, the cost to society of producing an additional unit of the good includes not only the cost of factor inputs like labour and capital but also the harm the firm causes to the environment.
The result is that in the absence of government intervention, there is an overproduction of such a good and its concomitant emission of greenhouse gases.
The amendment to the Bill under consideration provides the Government the legal powers to set regulatory standards on the manufacture and import of certain goods as well as the carrying out of certain works in order to limit the amount of carbon emissions.
As policy tools to fight climate change, the setting of regulatory standards, which is a command-and-control measure, works to complement the introduction of carbon taxes, which is a price mechanism measure. When is it optimal to use the setting of regulatory standards, which target quantities directly and when is it optimal to use prices to achieve the aim of limiting greenhouse gas emissions?
When the compliance costs of limiting greenhouse gas emissions are fairly uniform across firms in the economy and the harm imposed on the rest of society rises sharply when the amount of greenhouse gas emissions crosses a certain threshold, it is optimal to set regulatory standards.
In practice, however, compliance costs might differ across industries and even across firms in the same industry. For example, newer firms might more readily take advantage of clean technology not available to older firms when the latter made their investment decisions. A policy question is whether older firms should be given more time and help in resources to make the transition to adopting clean technology so that there might be differential standards across firms temporarily.
In an environment with uncertainty about the cost of compliance due to new technological development, setting the same regulatory standard for all firms runs the risk of two possible types of error.
If the actual cost of compliance turns out to be less than initially expected, then regulation would, in retrospect, have turned out to be too stringent. On the other hand, if the actual cost of compliance turns out to be higher than initially expected, then regulation would, in retrospect, have turned out to be too lax.
It might be preferable under uncertainty to set a tax on greenhouse gas emissions and then allow firms to choose the extent to which they wish to control the amount of emissions so it gives firms some buffer time to transit.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the emission of greenhouse gases from the manufacture and import of certain goods and carrying out of certain works by firms creates negative externalities on the rest of society. There is, therefore, a basis for government intervention to limit the amount of greenhouse gas emissions.
The set of optimal policy tools most likely includes both the setting of regulatory standards as well as the use of carbon taxes, which Singapore introduced in 2019. In combination with subsidies for research and development in clean technology, this set of policy tools can steer Singapore in the direction of being a leader in sustainable living. Sir, I support this Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I support the new regulations to reduce HFCs emitted by refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment. As mentioned by my colleague Louis Ng, I share his concerns.
I am concerned too with the details concerning certified technicians who handle refrigerants. Some of these employees are not very proficient in English. This has an impact on their certification. What are the plans to help these workers? Will the Government provide free training before the test? Will the testing be difficult? Will training be arranged on a regular basis to ensure that all technicians keep up with the technological changes in this sector?
(In English): Sir, not all job sites will be forbidden from carrying on with work during extended hours and on Sundays and public holidays. Construction sites beyond 150 metres of homes and noise-sensitive buildings such as hospitals are exempted.
I have received quite a number of feedback regarding noise pollution from residents over the years, even though the construction sites producing the noise are some distance away. There is a continued need to improve on the noise insulation properties of new and existing flats. I urge the Ministry to continue to look into the use of technology to minimise the noise pollution from construction projects.
In addition, how can we ensure that the video cameras installed by errant contractors are working well and recording without deliberate intervention? Sir, I support the Bill.
Leader.
PAPERCUTS