Debated in Parliament on 1 Feb 2021.
Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this debate. As a representative of a constituency with a comparatively younger demographic, many of whom are parents of young children and as a father of a young daughter myself, I have a deep enduring interest in the implications of climate change for the next generation. This is precisely why we should regard this issue as a climate emergency. Not so much because of the specific challenges that we face today, but in terms of what we leave behind for our children tomorrow, who will bear the costs of any impending environmental disaster.
I wish to commensurate with this House about the importance of a well-functioning carbon tax system for delivering effective reductions in our nation's carbon footprint. Importantly, I would argue in favour of such a tax, relative to other seemingly more efficient systems such as cap and trade. But, I will also suggest reasons why the current system as it stands, is inadequate, as well as proposed some radical, some practical refinements to the existing regime.
To be clear, there is an existing carbon tax stipulated in the Carbon Pricing Act of 2018, which came into force in January 2019. This was an important first step as 老子 (Laozi) reminds us 千里之行,始於足下, commonly translated as "a journey of thousand miles ends with a single step." But it is only a first step and unfortunately this step has been too tentative. The current rate is set at $5 per metric tonne of greenhouse gas emissions, set to be increased to $10 to $15 dollars a tonne by 2030.
This figure falls far below recommended amounts by just about every credible source. The median estimate called for by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is $95. Systematic reviews of academic estimates suggest a price closer to $77. Our rate is even low compared to actual rates currently impose worldwide. The OECD's calculations indicate that the effective rate among 41 major economies amount to $65. And all these numbers are in US dollars, not even local currency.
Moreover, the exiting carbon tax is limited to just the largest industrial facilities – those emitting in excess of 2,000 tons of carbon dioxide, and effectively covers just about 30 to 40 companies. Not only would this excessively conservative target fail to generate the sort of volume reductions required, it also concentrates the tax burden on a small set of firms. Even if these firms account for the vast majority of emissions, the narrow coverage is inconsistent with public finance principles.
It is worth noting that there an attractive alternative to the carbon tax: a cap-and-trade system. As the name implies, cap-and-trade "caps" the total amount of emissions according to some target, before subsequently allowing the trading of each firm's allocated emissions amount. The idea behind this is straightforward: firms that are better at reducing their carbon footprints tend to gain by selling their share to other less-efficient firms. Meanwhile, those with less carbon-reduction capacity can obtain reprieve by purchasing offsets from these more efficient firms.
In theory, it is possible to arrive at the same final outcome of reductions in environmentally harmful emissions with either carbon taxes or cap-and-trade. But there are a number of reasons to favor taxes as a preferred instrument.
The carbon tax is more robust to uncertainty. Cap-and-trade systems, while offering greater clarity over the ultimate amount of emissions that would result, tend to fall prey to uncertainty in terms of compliance costs. In a post-recession economic climate where uncertainty over impending costs is especially pernicious for the functioning of business, it makes more sense to allow uncertainty to fall on the total emissions front.
Furthermore, carbon taxes are less likely to be gamed by participants. The experience of countries that have sought to introduce quantity restrictions on pollutants is that they are difficult to ensure compliance. Cap-and-trade also encourages front-loading of investments in dirty technologies, since those with greater polluting potential are more likely to be granted higher initial caps. And even after implementation, permit trading can ironically encourage more pollution than otherwise, as firms trade off gains in market share against environmental penalties.
In comparison, a carbon tax, based as it is on a price mechanism, is straightforward, easily observed and monitored, and hence more likely to be enforced successfully. Another principle of public finance has to do with to whom the rents from the imposition of a tax or a quota accrues. Because taxes are directly collected from the Government, taxes generate revenue that flow directly into the public fisc. In contrast, if permits are simply assigned to firms, firms will capture the quota rents.
This is not simply a theoretical matter; it also carries enormous practical implications. Although the end objective – a reduction in total emissions – may be equivalently achieved via either method, carbon taxes raised can be directed toward other important social objectives. If instead quota permits are either simply issued or sold at an inappropriate discount to corporations, there is no guarantee that the excess value will subsequently be redirected toward the most optimal societal needs.
Mr Speaker, a properly calibrated carbon tax also offers a more decisive push toward climate-friendly structural reforms of our domestic economy. At the moment, our energy and fuel sources, not to mention our export basket, remains heavily inflected toward fossil fuels.
For instance, in late October 2020, the Government announced that it would import electricity from Malaysia under a two-year trial. I accept that part of the underlying premise for the effort is to spur a regional green electricity market. Even so, the contours of the deal, as reported by the press, strike me as incomplete. After all, energy is fungible; if Malaysia sells us clean energy, only to undo our emissions gains with producing more dirty energy elsewhere, the planet will suffer as net emissions increase. The deal is also symptomatic of how we tend to postpone the difficult act of passing costs through to the end consumer, some of which would ultimately be necessary to institute a behavioral shift toward a greater reliance on non-renewables.
As another example, the number of hybrid and electric vehicles in Singapore remain tiny: about 1,400 electric vehicles and 52,000 hybrids, out of our 950,000 strong fleet, a mere 6%. While Minister Heng Swee Keat did announce last year that internal combustion engine vehicles would be phased out by 2040, and Minister Ong Ye Kung has stated that we could be "more ambitious" in our move to low-emissions vehicles, it is difficult to envision this occurring without a clearer commitment, at least in the medium run, toward carbon taxes applied to petrol, as well as diesel.
The petrochemicals industry currently contributes a nontrivial share to Singapore's national output, around $81 billion or 3%, and our nation is currently the world's seventh largest exporter of chemicals and industry. What have we done to reduce this sector's footprint in our local economy and to transition toward more climate-friendly production? In this regard, it is worth noting that China, despite its relatively lower per capita income, has recognised the enormous potential that green technology offers and has embraced it in earnest. It has, in doing so, taken an important lead in developing such technologies. While we may not have certain built-in advantages in every dimension of green tech, we could find comparative advantage in certain niche areas, as my colleague, the Member of Parliament from Aljunied Leon Perera, will share in his speech.
A higher carbon tax, applied more broadly across the economy, will help usher in the necessary shifts by embedding the costs of carbon emissions directly into input prices. It also ensures that all segments of society: business, workers, Government and civil society, internalise the costs and consequences of climate change.
So, how should we move forward? Mr Speaker, I have made the case that the carbon tax, even the upper limit of $15 suggested by the CPA for 2030, is too low. If we wish to proceed carefully, we run the risk of our efforts being wholly unproductive altogether, if we remain excessively cautious. In such a case, we end up with the worse of both worlds; we introduce a friction on business operation, but we fail to gain the benefits of effective climate change mitigation.
While the specific price is certainly up for debate and should, ideally, be deliberated by a panel of experts with representatives from business, environmental civil society groups, policymakers from the NEA and MSE, and academics, a starting point of around $58 would at least place Singapore at the midpoint among industrialised economies, even if it remains below what would be necessary for decisive climate change mitigation.
Another useful benchmark is $133, which is the average cost of carbon capture and sequestration activities. A figure within this range would be a very useful start for the panel and our civil service to deliberate. And if I may turn the question around, posed by Minister Fu: how did the Government arrive at the $15? Was this based on the latest, credible scientific evidence of the amount that would be necessary for Singapore to achieve its climate change goals?
I would also suggest significantly expanding the coverage of the tax. The Government has already accepted that there should be no exemptions to firms liable for the tax. Yet, it has chosen to limit the scope to the 30 or so major emitters. This runs against a standard principle of public finance, that taxes should, ideally, be small and broad, to minimise their distortionary effects.
Moreover, there is little reason to retain the existing uniform tax across sectors. The firms currently affected by the tax are in distinct industries – petroleum, chemical, semiconductors and should the scope of coverage be further expanded, they would include firms in even more disparate sectors. Accordingly, sector-specific taxes would offer more room to ensure that targets are met, given the varied propensity for emissions in different industries.
Perhaps most crucially, the revenues from our carbon tax can then be used to offset other taxes, to ease the transition and ensure progressivity. Such tax-for-tax which we may call "raise and rebate" are not unprecedented, and have been exercised by the Government in the past. The Government can do the same this time, as a "Green Dividend". Alternatively, carbon taxes can be directed toward a "Green Fund," to be used toward investments that would further advance environmental objectives, such as solar panels or recycling operations that serve to decarbonise the economy. My colleague, Member of Parliament for Aljunied Gerald Giam, has developed these ideas in greater detail in his speech.
The bottom line is that we can ensure that the tax is revenue-neutral, which can go a long way toward mitigating the negative effects of higher costs and focus instead on shifting the structure of our economy.
Mr Speaker, I am aware that I find myself in the somewhat unusual circumstance of defending the merits of an existing Government programme, against an alternative that has been proposed by, among others, the PAP youth wing, which sit on the opposite side of the aisle. That said, other Members of Parliament, such as Mr Don Wee and Mr Henry Kwek, have made the case for retaining the carbon tax, albeit with differing details. I attribute it to the shared rarified air that we have all the way up here.
That said, I have taken this position because I believe that the carbon tax is not only more credible, but it also embeds preferable distributional outcomes, relative to schemes that may be more attractive from an efficiency standpoint on paper, but ultimately fall short in real-world conditions.
Perhaps, ironically, economists have moved toward this new consensus position despite being the ones to initially champion a cap-and-trade system. This shift occurred after increasing evidence emerged in favour of a tax relative to cap-and-trade. And when the facts change, we should be willing to change our minds.
Singapore has the fortune of already being a technologically advanced, services-oriented economy, and hence inherently better positioned to embrace more decisive moves toward addressing environmental issues and, in particular, the threat of climate change. Climate change is an emergency, which calls for drastic measures.
We should not allow this opportunity to pass, victim to a lackadaisical policy position and undue timidity. Perhaps just as importantly, we cannot relinquish our chance to be global leaders by our signal of how a decisive move away from business-as-usual is, truly, a moral imperative.
With that parting thought, I express my support for the Motion, as amended by the Member of Parliament from Hougang, Mr Dennis Tan.
Minister Grace Fu.
Mr Speaker, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate. I thank the Members – Mr Louis Ng, Miss Cheryl Chan, Mr Gan Thiam Poh, Ms Poh Li San, Ms Hany Soh and Mr Don Wee – who have tabled the Motion for drawing the attention of this House and the public to the important topic of climate change. Like all of you, sustainability is close to my heart. It has been almost a decade since I first joined MEWR in 2011. And in MCCY, sustainability often featured in my engagements with our youth and citizen groups. I can speak for all of my colleagues in MSE, and across the Government, that we are encouraged by this debate, and the strong voices of support for the work that we do every day to promote a sustainable Singapore for all generations.
Sustainability has always been a part of Singapore's DNA – always. Even before the term became widely used, we have always pursued sustainable development by balancing economic growth with protecting our environment. As early as 1967, we had the vision of a "Garden City" and took active steps to make this a reality. The 1971 Clean Air Act, with its stringent pollution controls, is another example of our early actions to not industrialise at the expense of the environment. In the 1980s, we undertook the monumental task of cleaning up our rivers and made Singapore River the icon it is today. More recently, we launched the ABC Waters programme – Active, Beautiful, Clean Waters – to realise the full potential of our water infrastructure beyond their drainage and water storage functions. Generations have transformed Singapore into the clean and green city we enjoy today. As we enjoy walks along our parks and waterways, we can take pride in the progress we have made.
With climate change looming, we will, and we must, continue to pursue this path of sustainable development. At the 2019 National Day Rally, Prime Minister Lee outlined the Government's commitment to understand, mitigate and adapt to climate change. Across the Government, we have charted out specific strategies to support our sustainability drive in the various sectors. Our inaugural Zero Waste Masterplan strives to transform Singapore into a Zero Waste Nation powered by a circular economy. Our Energy Story aspires to transform Singapore into a bright green spark for the world. We are on track to transform Singapore into a City in Nature. These are just examples of on-going efforts to energise all sectors to make climate change and sustainability core considerations. The Government's commitment is underscored by our decision to rename my Ministry to include "Sustainability".
We have been able to come this far by safeguarding not just the environment, but also ensuring economic growth and social inclusion; and galvanising Singaporeans to build a fair and just society, of hope and opportunity, that is sustainable, inclusive and resilient.
In doing so, we have always been keenly aware of our strengths and also our constraints. This awareness has prompted us to tackle our challenges pragmatically and turn constraints into opportunities. As we look ahead to strengthen our national approach to climate change, it is important to recall our key immutable realities.
First, our physical limitations. We will always be a dense and small island city-state. We have limited land, which we use to support diverse needs, including defence, industry, transport, housing and greenery. As Members noted, land use in Singapore will always be a trade-off between competing needs. Yet, we have always found a way to balance these needs. We built high-rise housing estates to house a growing population but set aside large nature reserves with about a third of the island covered by trees. With careful planning and in pursuit of our City in Nature vision, we have been able to protect and enhance ecologically important sites as green spaces and carbon sinks over the years. We are looking at more possibilities to enhance ecological connectivity and provide more green spaces for Singaporeans.
Second, we do not have the same options for alternative energy as other larger countries. We have neither great rivers for hydroelectric power, nor strong winds required for wind power. We are alternative-energy disadvantaged. Solar energy is our most viable renewable energy option, but even that is limited by available land area, urban shade and intermittency issues. Nevertheless, we have set ambitious solar deployment targets of 1.5 giga-watt peak of solar deployment by 2025 and at least 2 giga-watt peak by 2030.
As Mr Henry Kwek highlighted, we are taking a holistic approach to our energy challenge. We are tapping our four energy supply "switches". Other than solar, we rely on natural gas, which is the cleanest burning fuel, regional power grids and low-carbon alternatives. Energy conservation is a key priority. Other clean energy solutions may not be mature today, but show promise in contributing to our energy transformation efforts. Low-carbon hydrogen is one such emerging solution. Our research institutes are actively pursuing low-carbon energy research and development to unlock this potential over time.
Third, with no hinterland and no natural resources, we need a vibrant economy that is well plugged into the global economy. This will create jobs and opportunities for our people. To protect us from external shocks, we need a diversified economy, including maintaining manufacturing capabilities and capacity. This is especially so in a post-COVID-19 world, where resilience, inclusiveness and reliability have become paramount. At the same time, sustainability is at the top of mind for investors and consumers.
To remain competitive, we have to take into account these realities and balance our competing national priorities. The Energy & Chemicals sector (E&C sector) contributed around 3% of Singapore's GDP and employed over 25,000 people in 2019. It also enables many other parts of the economy, by transforming raw materials into important products that we use, including the personal protective equipment (PPE) for our healthcare workers. Our E&C sector produces not only for Singapore, but for the world. We aim to be a responsible supplier of such products, helping our industries to shift towards lower carbon products and be among the best-in-class in energy and carbon efficiency globally. Early on, we dared to transform Jurong Island into a world-class chemicals hub, even though we had no oil nor gas resources. Today, Jurong Island is home to over a hundred global chemical firms.
The E&C sector will play a key role in the global transition to a low-carbon future. For example, the chemicals industry provides silver paste, high performance plastic films and membranes that go into photovoltaic cells and batteries for electric vehicles. Members may be aware that Neste, the largest renewable diesel and sustainable aviation fuel producer worldwide, will be operating its largest renewables refinery in Singapore. Neste opened the first phase of its plant in 2010 and will be doubling its refining capacity to about 2.6 million tons of renewable fuels per annum. The E&C sector is also a key partner in the development of emerging low-carbon technologies, such as carbon capture, utilisation and storage. These technologies can be pivotal in enabling decarbonisation at scale. Singapore will benefit from anchoring industry players here.
We face inherent challenges as a nation. Yet, we have always tackled them squarely, turning challenges into opportunities. This continues to hold true, as we apply the same determination to tackling climate change.
Members, like Mr Louis Ng, Ms Nadia Samdin and Prof Koh Lian Pin, have highlighted that Singapore is already feeling the impacts of climate change. The year 2020 was one of the top 10 warmest years on record. Yet, June 2020 was one of the wettest and coolest Junes we have had in decades. Our weather is getting warmer, rainstorms heavier and dry spells more pronounced. Climate change can result in more frequent episodes of extreme weather, disrupt global supply chains, encourage diseases like dengue and threaten access to food, water and energy.
To effectively tackle climate change, we set up the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Climate Change (IMCCC) in 2007 and the National Climate Change Secretariat in 2010. At that time, climate negotiations were just ramping up. We needed a whole-of-Government effort, with top-level leadership. The IMCCC has played a key role to oversee and coordinate both the international negotiations and domestic aspects of our climate change efforts over the years. So, since 2007, more than 10 years ago. And, because of this, we have a strong Climate Action Plan today.
To better understand climate change and its impact, we made early investments to boost our climate science capabilities. This will increase the scientific rigour in our policies. Launched in 2013, the Centre for Climate Research Singapore (CCRS) is now one of the few leading centres in the region, focusing on research in tropical weather and climate. Last year, we set up the Climate Science Research Programme Office under the CCRS to drive our national climate science research masterplan.
Climate change is a global challenge which will require an international solution. No single country will be able to tackle climate change on its own. Singapore cannot go it alone. To mitigate the global climate threat, we need a strong global response. All countries, big and small, must join hands to do their part. As a responsible global citizen, Singapore, too, will play our part as part as part of a larger international solution. This is why we are a strong advocate for a robust multilateral rules-based approach to addressing climate change. Although we contribute to only 0.1% of global emissions, we have and we will continue to push the envelope on climate ambition, taking into account our constraints.
We have been playing an active role to sustain the momentum for global climate action, whether at the annual Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC, or by supporting fellow small states and developing countries to build capacity, implement and achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. We are proud that experts from our Universities are making useful contributions. Assoc Profs Winston Chow from SMU, Lynette Cheah from SUTD and Prof Benjamin Horton from NTU are participating actively in the Sixth Assessment cycle of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Singapore was one of the first few countries, in fact, to ratify the Paris Agreement, which enabled its early entry into force. As a signatory to the Paris Agreement, we have pledged to peak our emissions at 65 million tonnes of CO2-equivalent around 2030, and aspire to halve emissions from its peak to 33 million tonnes by 2050. We will seek to achieve net-zero emissions as soon as viable in the second half of the century. As Members have highlighted, we do not make commitments lightly because we have every intention to make this commitment a reality.
After deliberation, we have made several enhancements to our NDC, including a clear peaking target and detailed implementation efforts. Given our circumstances, these targets are challenging and ambitious, yet credible. For example, even if we were to put solar PVs on every single rooftop our our HDB estates, we will still need to rely on natural gas for our electricity needs unless there are breakthroughs in needle-moving technologies like low carbon fuels, such as hydrogen or low carbon solutions like CCUS. We consulted widely, and our strategies strike a careful balance between all stakeholders – individuals, businesses, green groups and academia. Many of them recognised the constraints and trade-offs that we have to work with and appreciate that we back our ambition with concrete targets and action.
We will take a serious, hard look at our emissions and continue to transform our industry, economy and society. To achieve deep emissions cut, we will need to draw on technologies that are still nascent today and pursue international and regional collaboration. We have to rely heavily on cross-border collaboration, such as regional electricity grids and the establishment of a robust international carbon market with high environmental integrity. These are long-term strategies. Over time, we will gain experience and better understand the extent to which potential emissions reductions can be realised. This will help us further calibrate our actions to achieve positive climate impact.
Central to our climate mitigation strategy is our carbon tax. We are the first in Southeast Asia to have implemented a carbon tax in 2019. Our carbon tax framework has been tailored to our context, putting in place a fair, uniform and transparent price signal to incentivise emissions reductions. At 80% of our total emissions, our carbon tax coverage is one of the most comprehensive globally and we have not provided exemptions to any of our covered facilities.
We agree with Members on the importance of a strong carbon price signal in moving our industries. Several Members – Mr Henry Kwek, Mr Louis Chua – provided comments on how our carbon price should be raised. We will review our carbon price by 2023, with the intent of raising the tax rate by 2030, and we note the suggestion made by Member Jamus Lim. We will take into account international climate change developments, the progress of our climate mitigation efforts and our economic competitiveness. We will continue to work closely with all relevant stakeholders to address concerns.
Learning from our carbon tax experience so far, what had worked well for us was the clarity in our communications and close cooperation with our companies. By announcing the intent to review our tax rate early, we had provided a clear sense of direction. This gave us and our companies the confidence and time to transit to a competitive low-carbon economy. This consultative approach must continue to feature in our work.
Our carbon tax is not a stand-alone measure. We are committed to supporting our businesses and households transit to a low-carbon future and are prepared to spend more than what we collect in carbon tax revenue in the first five years on worthwhile projects to achieve emissions reductions.
On our building sector, which Ms Poh Li San spoke on, we have, indeed, come a long way in our green buildings journey. Over the years, we have progressively raised our building sustainability standards and stepped up efforts to encourage the adoption of green technology and sustainable practices. This is not just in the construction process, but throughout the building lifecycle. While we have made significant advances in the energy efficiency of our buildings, we still need building users to play their part in managing energy consumption, for example, by reducing their use of air-conditioning.
Despite our constraints as a highly urbanised tropical city, we are committed to further reducing the carbon footprint of our built environment. We will continue to push for the adoption of Super Low Energy Buildings and to support the development of energy-efficient and cost-efficient green technologies. We have been working with stakeholders on how we can achieve these aims in the next edition of the Singapore Green Building Masterplan.
Mindful that we might not be able to reverse climate change completely, adaptation must also feature in our plans. We take a long-term approach to building up our climate resilience. From coastal adaptation to mitigating urban heat island effects and enhancing our food supply resilience, we will plan ahead, invest in science and technology, and develop innovative solutions.
Our plans will include a combination of measures, including nature-based solutions, as Prof Koh Lian Pin has mentioned. The benefits to such solutions are multi-fold: conserving our biodiversity and creating new recreational space for the community to enhance our living environment and, importantly, as Ms Nadia Samdin and Prof Koh have mentioned, these solutions will also contribute to mitigating climate change. This is an exciting, growing area that we will study closely and work in partnership with our researchers, as well as international counterparts.
While we have been taking serious steps through our Climate Action Plan, there is much more we can do together in the coming years. Not only will this allow us to cope with our challenges, it will provide new opportunities to test-bed and commercialise new solutions in Singapore, which may be relevant for other cities and countries facing similar challenges.
We must adopt an enabling mindset and environment, and actively engage scientists, businesses and citizens in meaningful partnerships, including civil society groups. This will keep us agile in tapping opportunities as the world transits to a low-carbon future. COVID-19 has underscored the importance of transformation, resilience and cohesion in societies. Singapore will strive to emerge stronger together from the COVID-19 crisis and build back greener and better.
We will promote green growth. We are actively pursuing new opportunities, both in existing sectors and new sectors, that Singapore companies can thrive in. We will build an eco-system to support and equip our companies and people with the right skills to seize these opportunities. For example, developing Singapore's capability in green financing will catalyse the growth of sustainability practices in our economy and enhance our competitiveness. Global investors are increasingly sensitised to environmental, social and governance issues, and the right allocation of capital will support sustainability projects and unlock green growth opportunities and good jobs for Singaporeans. As Mr Henry Kwek highlighted, by harnessing the potential of our carbon services industry to grow Singapore into a leading carbon trading and services hub, we can build an eco-system of expertise in this growing field.
Plastics, an issue of growing global concern, also presents an opportunity. Just as we closed the water loop, we hope to do the same for plastics. Mechanical recycling and chemical recycling solutions can turn plastic waste into usable plastics. We are actively exploring chemical recycling that turns plastics which are not suitable for traditional mechanical recycling, including contaminated ones, into NewOil.
As part of the Research, Innovation and Enterprise (RIE) 2025 plan, we will strengthen the networks between our research institutes, and between research institutions and companies. The solutions for sustainability and climate change will come from such multi-disciplinary, yet disciplined approach to research, development and enterprise.
We will green transport. Singapore is investing in public transport and is the only country in the world that has a zero-growth policy for vehicles. We will go further in making our vehicles green, including through the electrification of vehicles. The Government aims to phase out internal combustion engine vehicles and have all vehicles run on cleaner energy by 2040. We are working closely with stakeholders, including the private sector, to catalyse the adoption of electric vehicles.
We will be enhancing the Public Sector Taking the Lead in Environmental Sustainability initiative so that we leverage the collective capabilities across the Government to improve resource efficiency and pursue environmental sustainability in the Public Sector.
This brings me to the importance of deepening engagements. Mr Louis Ng, Ms Hany Soh, Ms Nadia Samdin, Mr Seah Kian Peng brought up the need to rally everyone around the common goal of sustainable development. And engagement not only with our community and 3P partners, across the people, public and private sectors, but also harmonious engagement with our natural environment. We strongly believe in the importance of this and have been engaging communities, schools and individuals through citizen science programmes and the One Million Trees movement, among others. We will continue to do more, and recently launched the Youth@SGNature initiative to provide young people with more platforms to engage with nature.
Educating our young on environmental sustainability and climate change is important. The Government will continue to strengthen the learning experiences for students and mould the values of our future generations.
We have heard similar hopes and aspirations, and more, at our Emerging Stronger Conversations, which many of us have been involved in, and other platforms. These are areas of key priority to the Government. The Government has heard the voices, the suggestions and are actively incorporating these suggestions into our plans. While building on many of our past policies and programmes, we can do more to pull these different strands and efforts together, culminating in a common, united vision.
This Motion is, therefore, timely. Over the last few months, the Government has been making preparations to launch a whole-of-nation movement to advance the sustainability agenda in Singapore. We call this the Singapore Green Plan 2030 or, in short, the Green Plan. This is a multi-Ministry effort and will be a major policy priority for this Government.
Under the Green Plan, agencies will set ambitious and concrete targets on a sectoral basis, building on what we have achieved. We want to rally and work with our 3P partners by articulating our priorities and goals, and we will consciously create space for the community to join hands and do more together. Ministers and political officeholders will be actively involved in the development of comprehensive programmes as part of this national engagement process. It is not just about getting feedback on Government policies, but working together to co-create solutions. Every sector, and every action, will count.
Through this process, we hope to catalyse bold, balanced and collective action. Bold – that we push the envelope on all fronts, challenging ourselves to do more, in spite of our national circumstances and constraints. Balanced – for we know that, with every action and target, there are considerations and trade-offs to be made, and every Singaporean must have a voice and stake in our sustainability journey. And collective – because we need all 3P parties, all segments of the society, to work with us to make the Green Plan a reality.
We will announce more details in the coming weeks. The Deputy Prime Minister will speak about our sustainability agenda during the Budget debates. The Government has every intent, as the Motion states, to partner the private sector and the people of Singapore, to deepen and accelerate efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change and to embrace sustainability in the development of Singapore.
Sustainability is a journey, not a destination. Our work to achieve sustainable development is never done. Our Singapore Green Plan will be a living document. We will adapt our plans, ambitions and policies over time. Circumstances will change, new opportunities will emerge, and new ideas and initiatives will present themselves as we work with our citizens, businesses and communities.
More importantly, we must build the social compact to deal with the challenges of climate change and sustainability. Just as we have come together to fight the COVID-19 pandemic collectively, we will need to act with the same sense of solidarity and make collective, informed decisions on the steps we will take to achieve sustainable development as a society.
As we walk together on the sustainability journey, it is not enough for us to just set up impressive sounding goals. We will need to consider Singapore's circumstances and constraints. We may not be able to avail ourselves of solutions deployed in countries like China, Japan and South Korea. On the other hand, as a city, we are as ambitious, if not more so, as Beijing, Tokyo and Seoul.
This will involve candid discussions on the costs and trade-offs involved, which we will have to bear, whether as consumers, as businesses or as the Government. These costs may manifest in the change in the price for a good or service we enjoy today, the cost of producing a product, the need to allocate scarce resources to a new solution, the investment in new infrastructure, or some inconveniences in changing our habits and the way we do things.
These costs are not a given as they can be mitigated by the choices we make. As individuals, we can consume less, use less air-conditioning and recycle more. As companies, we can redesign our business operations with greater efficiency in the use of resources. And the cost differences will close over time as technology advances, as we are seeing with electric vehicles, for example.
Hence, we need to evaluate each choice carefully, and find the right pace and balance in our policies and actions, taking into account our realities as a small city-state. Trade-offs we must make and changes we must pursue, for the consequences of not doing so will inflict on us costs that are many times greater in the future. Disruptions to essential supplies, increased exposure to vector-borne diseases, and catastrophic weather.
How we view these costs and how we achieve that balance to build a sustainable future will define us and will be defined by us. The many valuable suggestions and contributions shared in this House today are very encouraging. We will consider each idea seriously. For some, you will be pleased to know that work is under way and you will hear more about it in the Green Plan. For others, more time may be needed for study and review and consultation. Sustainability is not just about doing more, but doing more together, in an inclusive way, with all our stakeholders on board. I hope that Members will support us and work with us on this national movement.
It is often said that the best way to predict the future is to create it. Climate change requires us to envision a new future, and be prepared to give up the old to embrace the new. And we firmly believe that in Singapore, we will co-create a sustainable future for present and future generations. On this note, I support the Motion, and look forward to working with all of you on this journey towards sustainability. [Applause.]
Miss Rachel Ong.
Mr Speaker, I would like to start my speech conveying appreciation to the proposing team of this Motion, and to our many Government agencies who have long started the good work to support Singapore in mitigating and adapting to climate change, especially our teams at NEA, NParks, MSS and PUB. Also, many thanks to Minister Grace Fu for sharing Singapore's multiple efforts and achievements to-date in mitigating climate change.
One distinguishing mark in Singapore’s policy-making approach is our ability to think generations when designing policies. At the price of popular vote, the Government of today has often bitten the bullet, knowing that some benefits will only be reaped by our future generations.
Today’s topic on deepening Singapore’s efforts against climate change is one such Think-Generations policy. The trade-offs on current economic growth are real and tangible especially in light of the heavy pandemic that has cost to our economy.
Yet, to safeguard Singapore’s long-term well-being in the ways that even the deepest financial reserves cannot, we must act today.
The start of 2021 saw several remarkable natural phenomena in Singapore, beginning with the non-stop rain that has led to one of the highest recorded rainfall in the past 39 years. We then saw mudslides and flooding in various parts of Singapore and temperatures dipped to a low of 21.1 degrees celsius. These unpredictable weather patterns have increased in frequency the last decade in Singapore.
Later in the month, we then saw pink-purple algae bloom in Singapore Waterways — Mr Speaker, I am so sorry, my document has some mix-up. May I request for a minute?
Why not we move to the next speaker while you sort out your speech?
Thank you very much.
Mr Don Wee, you may proceed next. Stepped out? Mr Leon Perera.
Mr Speaker, Sir, the climate change Motion before us today raises one of the gravest challenges we face as a nation to the platform of Parliamentary debate. The number of speakers on this Motion from all parties in the House attests to the gravity of this issue.
I support the amendments proposed by the hon Member for Hougang, Mr Dennis Tan. The climate crisis is an emergency. Before we act, we must acknowledge the serious consequences of not acting. The hour has come for Singapore to call a spade a spade and join the close to the over 30 other countries in the world who have declared climate emergencies. As Mr Dennis Tan eloquently argued, the costs of getting climate change wrong in terms of the impact on sea levels, the weather and other dimensions of the crisis are so severe as to more than warrant the term emergency.
The word emergency signifies several things. One is the seriousness of the crisis. But another is the fact that this is a crisis that will deeply affect the nation as a whole and every person in it – rich and poor, fortunate and unfortunate, well-educated and not. An emergency calls for all hands on deck.
And it is in this spirit that Mr Dennis Tan’s other amendment, defining a role for civil society in our response, is important. As I argued in my maiden speech in this House in 2016, independent Singapore has traditionally had a strong state but a less strong civil society and domestic private sector. In this long 21st century, we need all these sectors to be strong, to contribute to diverse ideas in the public square and to augment our nation’s capacity to execute the best of those ideas, alongside a balanced political system to foster accountability, diversity of views and alternatives.
Mr Speaker, Sir, one way Singapore could be a beacon to other nations is by showing how economic development and environmental sustainability can go hand-in-hand. Just as Singapore was lauded in the past for national innovations like the HDB and EDB, we can be admired and emulated in the future for mastering the intersection between economic development and environmental sustainability. To do this we must be ambitious, united and smart.
Sir, in my speech on the Motion, I will speak about a few broad principles that will stand us in good stead as we address the challenge of climate change as a nation. And I will provide several examples of policies we can adopt under each of these thrusts.
Firstly, we should place people in the centre. We must go into battle with a keen sense that the costs of climate change affect people unequally. A rise in temperatures affects those who cannot afford air-conditioning more, for example. Our climate change policies should be calibrated to reduce those inequalities.
Secondly, in this climate change cause, transparency is a powerful ally. Government plays a crucial role here. More information being made available about how well we are doing will facilitate public scrutiny and well-informed public debate about the inevitable policy trade-offs inherent in any debate on climate change.
And thirdly, in terms of Singapore’s longer term green vision, our green goals should be ambitious but smart – we should aim for more green substantive targets but also ensure that our approaches add value to our economy in terms of cultivating pools of expertise, know-how, talent and entrepreneurial acumen that will drive a high-quality economy through partly exporting those skills to the region and the world. And as we battle climate change, our fight needs to be guided by a clear idea of what success looks like. Green goals should figure strongly in the key performance indicators we adopt in Government and as a nation – not necessarily at the expense of economic indicators like household income, but alongside these.
Sir, first, let me first move to sustainability and inequality. There is an important and troubling nexus between these two issues.
The effects of climate change would be borne disproportionately by those of lesser means – those with less resources to move house, to air-condition their homes, to filter their air and afford medical treatment. This is true globally and within Singapore. Also, some geographic areas are more vulnerable to these impacts than others. In responding to the climate crisis, our responses have to take into account this fact of unequal impacts and burdens.
Extensively built areas like, for example, Woodlands, Serangoon, Geylang, Sengkang and Punggol are listed as very high vulnerability in terms of urban heat, according to Cooling Singapore’s 2020 study. The risk is much higher for low-income residents and other people who live and work in these areas because many do not have the options for adaptation or have them to a lesser degree: no air-conditioning; shift workers who have to sleep during the hotter day-time; and older people of lesser means who are at higher risk of heat stroke. Moreover, less living space per resident means hotter rooms.
This suggests the need for progressivity in terms of our policies. For example, can we do more to entrench innovations like anti-solar paint, especially for HDB rental blocks and HDB blocks for lower income constituents.
My Parliamentary colleague, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, has made an eloquent case for an upward trajectory for the existing carbon tax. One avenue towards which the incremental revenues from a higher carbon tax could be directed would be progressively-tiered green dividends paid to Singaporeans of lesser means, to cushion the impact of the carbon tax on the cost of living. This is not a new or radical idea. In Switzerland, two thirds of the collected revenue from their carbon tax is redistributed to households, on a per capita basis, and to firms in proportion to their payroll. In Canada’s British Columbia province, the government makes payments of a Climate Action Tax Credit or BCCATC to families. The payment is quarterly and combined with the quarterly payment of other credits.
Before I leave the issue of inequality, I would like to touch on the issue of protecting our mature forest land, but in the context of our golf clubs. The land leases of seven of eight golf clubs whose leases were due to expire between 2021 and 2023 have been renewed to some extent. Our golf clubs take up 1,500 hectares of land or roughly 2% of our land area.
Sir, I am not arguing for all golf clubs in Singapore to be removed and I welcome the information shared by Minister Desmond Lee on the subject earlier today. Given the importance of protecting pristine natural habitats like mature forests, can there not be more scope to review the land devoted to golf courses as a general planning parameter, going forward, keeping in mind the fact that not everyone plays golf; the fact that there are available golfing options very close to Singapore; and the likelihood that golf is not a huge driver of inbound tourism?
Secondly, Sir, let me touch on the broad subject of transparency and consultation. In the climate change cause, transparency is a critical ally. We are unlikely to achieve success in any endeavour if we do not define what success looks like and if we do not track our progress towards that end in a transparent manner. On this theme, I have a few suggestions for Government and governance.
I suggest a stronger suite of incentives and disincentives for quality sustainability reporting for SGX companies in line with Global Reporting Initiative and Taskforce on Climate-related Financial Disclosures standards, with additional support and a longer transitional runway for small-to-mid cap companies.
The current reporting scheme does not mandate companies to report according to specific guidelines. Hence, reporting standards differ amongst publicly-listed companies and renders the process not very meaningful. SGX has announced that it will improve on this front, but the improvements can and should be done in a single step with additional support given earlier on.
Next, it would appear that environmental impact assessments or EIAs are not strictly mandatory for all major projects. I would suggest that this be corrected.
Moreover, it is not clear to what extent Environmental Monitoring and Management Plans (EMMPs) have regulatory teeth behind them.
There has been much mature forest that has been cleared over the years that could possibly have failed EIAs. For example, 700 hectares of Tengah forest was cleared. The environmental baseline study for this has not yet been disclosed by the HDB. The same can be said of Tagore forest, which was home to several endangered and threatened species.
Moreover, under the current regime, EIA consultants are hired and paid for by the developers, which can lead to a perception of conflict of interest. The EMMP and EIA reports are intended to keep these same developers accountable. Can an independent regulatory body administer the consultant engagement and quality controls inherent in the EIA and EMMP process?
Lastly, Mr Speaker, Sir, I shall touch on how being green need not come at the expense of creating good quality jobs and an economy that delivers better quality of life for Singaporean.
As as we promote sunrise future-ready green sectors in our economy and make plans to help sunset less green sectors pivot towards a greener future, we should always keep in mind the imperative to nurture domestically-rooted pools of expertise, know-how managerial and entrepreneurial talent together with the eco-system needed to root them here. We can show the world how a high quality economy can be combined with sustainability just as we can show the world how it can be combined with democratic ownership and participation.
There is more to be done to support local entrepreneurs in fields like solar installation and maintenance, electric vehicle charging infrastructure, wind turbine construction, riding perhaps on our talent IP and know-how for oil and gas rig building, vertical urban farming, green financing and professional services for a green economy. Before I continue, I declare my interest as the CEO of an international research consultancy that undertakes work in environmental-related sectors amongst others.
Sir, in many of these future-ready green sectors, it may be hard to compete for the manufacturing, for example, in solar cell, in electric vehicle (EV) production – not impossible but hard. But we can compete for our R&D rapid prototyping installation and maintenance activity. Our companies have the opportunity to build capabilities in performing installation and maintenance in and designing products for optimised for tropical environments. For example, Sunseap's Charge+ is one of the first companies to get involved in EV charging here and the company does business across the Asia Pacific. Recently, Keppel started building its first offshore wind turbine installation vessel in the US which previously built sophisticated offshore rigs.
We need more of such examples and the Government should play a facilitating role by providing incentives support in proportion to how ambitious and capable these local firms are and how fast they can grow and create good jobs at home, in other words. We need a strongly developmental mindset and not a scheme with administration mindset.
More can be done to nurture in a very targeted manner local champions in professional services fields where there is a relative dearth of these and these fields would be, for example, clean development management advisory, carbon trading, verification, consultancy for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries, or REDD+ and other similar consulting services.
Next, to make a better case for the conservation of mature forests, mangrove areas and so on, which my colleague Mr Dennis Tan spoke about and which Mr Tan and my Parliamentary colleague Ms He Ting Ru asked about in their Parliamentary Questions, can the Government commit to making sure that peripheral Woodland and green areas are accessible to the public via trails, wherever feasible? It is important to prevent mature core forests and mangroves from turning into parks. But even if they are conserved, we still need to reduce impact to sensitive areas in light of, for example, the trail erosion at Bukit Timah Nature Reserve. Hence, it is advisable to work with peripheral and non-core forests, some of which are in URA's Masterplan for development.
This could yield public recreational and educational benefits which helps to cement public buy-in to green efforts as well as possibly garnering eco-tourism benefits. The URA's Masterplan 2019 lists 20 forest sites as being slated for development. Public attention is only focused on a few of these right now. The rest have also been earmarked for various land uses. Can some be developed into accessible public trails that can also serve as wildlife corridors?
Lastly, Sir, on the theme of a national green agenda, let me talk about indicators of national development and welfare.
There is room for us to review the KPIs applied to Ministries and Statutory Boards to incorporate green goals and targets, such as reducing net carbon emissions alongside reflecting more transparency in reporting these. The example of New Zealand has attracted considerable interest globally and for good reason. For years, the New Zealand government has been collecting indicators of well-being broadly defined, An OECD paper in 2019 said and I quote, "The Treasury of New Zealand has developed its living standards framework and associated dashboard to integrate well-being evidence more systematically in its advice to the government". And, of course, this approach goes beyond green goals, but the green dimension is baked into this approach. One of New Zealand's commitments for its public sector is to be carbon neutral by 2025.
I would like to suggest that the different arms of Government set targets for carbon emissions reduction in carbon neutrality at some point in the future then publish regular indicators of progress. This should be accompanied with a roadmap for the decarbonisation of the public sector. This roadmap should extend to all Government bodies with stronger targets or sooner targets for some rather than others, depending on their ability to cut emissions. This goes beyond what is currently being done under the Public Sector Taking the Lead in Environmental Sustainability (PSTLES) initiative. The important suggestion for green procurement by state agencies mooted by my Parliamentary colleague, Mr Gerald Giam cuts along the same grain as this thrust.
I would also suggest that a part of our National Research Foundation funds be earmarked as a matter of policy for projects that have a high likelihood of strong environmental impact as well as tracked in terms of environmental outcomes. These could include, for example, R&D projects related to electric vehicles, solar power and plant-based proteins.
I would also like to suggest that green goals be reflected in our Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs). Our ITMs should have sustainability transformation goals and roadmaps baked into them as it were. This green dimension should not only be contained in one ITM but should be seen as a horizontal that cuts across all existing ITMs. This is not only important for pursuit of our green goals, but would also help ensure the longer-term competitiveness of our ITM sectors given that environmental and sustainability standards will inevitably rise all over the world and Singapore-based companies should be ahead of the curve on this so as to stay globally competitive.
To that end, I would also like to make two suggestions.
Firstly, ensure diversity in the membership of the Future Economic Council (FEC) to include good representation of NGOs, academics, sustainability professionals and civil society representatives. And secondly, pathways into a green future should reflect transition plans for sectors and their workers that will be sunset sectors in a greener future, for example, fossil fuel industries and traditional car workshop activity.
My Parliamentary colleague, Mr Gerald Giam, has made an important suggestion about the use of the Special Employment Credit (SEC) to help nudge such workers to take up green jobs.
I would also like to call for our Sovereign Wealth Funds (SWFs) to set targets to wind down their investment in fossil fuel sectors which, in any case, will face an uncertain longer term future even in commercial terms. Such a strategy need not be inconsistent with earning good returns. As shown by the example on performance of the Norwegian SWF, which began divesting from fossil fuels in 2019. Moreover, can our SWFs be given a mandate to proactively invest in local firms that are developing next generation solutions for the green future in sectors like EVs, solar and plant-based proteins, for example?
In passing, I would like to observe that ambition plays a key role in this climate change fight. As argued eloquently by my Parliamentary colleague, Mr Louis Chua, Singapore's action is still "highly insufficient" and consistent with three to four degree Celsius warming, well below the two degrees Celsius goal targeted by the Paris Agreement. Singapore aims to peak emissions in 2030 while the IPCC recommends 45% emissions reduction from 2010 levels by 2030 and net-zero by 2050.
One device to move us on the right track to is to set hard national goals for renewable energy share of total energy consumption – hard goals but realistic goals, as Mr Louis Chua argued for.
Sir, in conclusion, I would like to briefly share some personal perspectives on why this subject is so important.
In 1990, I remember astronomer Carl Sagan persuaded NASA to get the space probe Voyager 1 to turn back towards earth and take a photograph of earth before it left for the outer reaches of the solar system. The resulting photograph became known as the pale blue dot photograph which shows us the stark reality of how small this planet ultimately is in the vastness of the cosmos and how our differences as members of humanity paled beside the shared imperative of protecting the only home we have ever known.
We know the reality of the climate emergency facing Singapore in the world now. The generation that led the world through the Second World War was known in some quarters as the greatest generation. Out of the ashes of war came institutions like the United Nations, the World Bank and the IMF, that continue to play a useful role, however imperfect, in the current and hopefully soon-to-be improved world order. Let us reflect on that —
Order. Mr Perera. You have 45 seconds.
Sure. Let us reflect on that for a second. Great crises can bring out the best in us. That is the fate we can choose. And it is because we need to make that choice that I support the amended Motion proposed by Mr Dennis Tan.
Senior Minister Teo.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I had not intended to speak on the subject, but after listening to so many speakers, I am truly gratified at the support for environmental action and climate change that is coming from all sides of this House. As the Chairman of the IMCCC, I have never seen such overwhelming support in so many years and I am glad that it is so forthcoming.
I would like to make one clarification on carbon tax because there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding even among normally well-informed Members of this House on carbon tax in Singapore.
There has been a comment that the carbon tax in Singapore is very narrowly focused and only affects a few industries. In fact, the carbon tax in Singapore is one of the most comprehensive in the world. If one looks at it, you can see that we have chosen to apply the carbon tax at key nodes of carbon emissions in Singapore so that this tax will flow through evenly to the rest of the economy. This makes the implementation of the carbon tax and the administrative load on companies, especially SMEs, very low.
By selecting these key nodes and applying the carbon tax there, for example, the power companies and the key emitters in industry, we have been able to cover 80% of emissions in Singapore, and this is an extremely effective way of doing so.
The remaining 20%: the highest proportion of the remainder actually comes from transport fuel emissions, which are already fairly substantially taxed in Singapore. So, our coverage is even higher than 80% when one talks about the carbon tax coverage.
I just wanted to make this clarification so that there is no misunderstanding in this House about how we have implemented the carbon tax.
In fact, I am very gratified that many Members have made very strong arguments for a comprehensive and even carbon tax that is applied across the whole economy as a very effective way of implementing carbon emission controls. In fact, a number of Members have advocated substantially higher carbon tax rates than we are applying today, and I hope that this will smoothen the passage of any such measures in this House when they are discussed in the future. [Applause.]
Mr Don Wee.
As my speech touches on carbon tax and green financing, I declare that I am working with a bank and a council member of the Institute of Singapore Chartered Accountants.
The carbon tax is widely recognised as the most effective way to reduce emissions. Currently, Singapore's carbon tax of $5 per tonne of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is levied only on key facilities as mentioned by Senior Minister Teo whose annual emissions are more than 25,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide. These facilities contribute to 80% of Singapore's emissions. The Government aims to raise the tax to between $10 and $15 by 2030, subject to a review in 2023. In comparison, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change recommends at least US$135. So, we are looking at a huge gap here.
Proposing an increase in carbon tax during this challenging period seems counter-intuitive. On the other hand, we know that however difficult it is, we must still look beyond our immediate future to plan for decades ahead. Many of the changes we need to make to combat climate change have to begin now.
I am hopeful that we will emerge from the COVID-19 crisis by 2025. Therefore, I suggest that we increase our carbon tax gradually, so that we will be able meet higher targets incrementally, based on the following timeline and quantums: between $30 and $55 by 2030; between $50 and $90 by 2035; and between $75 and $120 by 2040.
In addition, I request that these increased taxes be announced with a long period of advance notice. For example, the 2023 review should be the deadline by which 2030 rates are finalised. The same review should also provide an estimate range for 2035 rates. The advance notice is extremely important, as it gives businesses time to adapt and plan.
The Government should also provide the reassurance that each review of the carbon tax will take into consideration a matrix of socio-economic factors – such as projections of GDP impact, cost of living and employment – to ensure that Singapore maintains its reputation as a responsive, business-friendly hub.
The revenue from the carbon tax can be used to expand funding for energy efficiency and green financing schemes. For example, the Energy Efficiency Fund, Resource Efficiency Grant and Genco Energy Efficiency Grant could increase their co-funding of efficiency projects beyond the current 50% for meritorious projects.
Similar efficiency grants should also be extended to other industries, such as transportation and agriculture progressively in future, to ensure that carbon abatement is an economy-wide project. Tax exemptions could be granted for start-ups and joint ventures that specialise in emerging green technologies and services. The Government should also incentivise green financing initiatives by the banks. Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Among the climate change measures our country has implemented, the carbon tax is one of the most effective and noticeable. Although the public support environment protection measures, they are also worried about the impact of carbon tax on most consumers and small and medium size enterprises. I think that while carbon tax increases will lead to increases in utility bills, our country is still able to bear the increments. Utility bills normally only constitute a small part of an enterprise’s expenses. After all, rental, salaries and equipment fees take up a larger proportion.
What our Government must do is to ensure that our SMEs and low-income families obtain appropriate rebates and subsidies, for example, the kueh-lapis style of tiered support to help underprivileged families. The Government can use the carbon tax collected to subsidise our local companies' and underprivileged families' utility bills, so that they will not be affected.
Presently, a $5 carbon tax means a 1% increase in household's utility bills. COVID-19 has already given many of our families huge financial pressure, especially the low-income families. They face many challenges, and hence, we should reduce their burden in this area. The Government had announced that the U-Save voucher scheme will be run until this year. I suggest that the Government link U-Save with carbon tax increments, so that in this way, even when the carbon tax rises, the increase in utility rebates will be enough to offset the increases in charges.
Just now, Member Mr Louis Chua suggested that the Government advocate Green Financing. Last November, MAS introduced the Green and Sustainability-linked Loan Grant Scheme (GSLS) which will come into effect on 1 January 2021. This is an unprecedented scheme in the world. GSLS will support companies to obtain green and sustainability financing, regardless of their size. It will help them to pay for the cost of hiring an independent service provider to certify the green and sustainability certificate. The scheme also encourages the banks to introduce a loan framework to link green and sustainability, so that SMEs will find it easier to obtain this type of loan.
Just now, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim quoted Laozi’s words: the journey of a thousand miles starts with the first step, I would also like to quote Laozi: Great undertakings have small beginnings, and difficult tasks are tackled from where it is easy. As Minister Grace Fu mentioned just now, the Government already took the first step in 1967.
So, in conclusion, I support this Motion.
Miss Rachel Ong.
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for this opportunity. Mr Speaker, I would like to start my speech conveying my appreciation to the proposing team of this Motion and to our many Government agencies who have long started the good work to support Singapore in mitigating and adapting to climate change, especially our teams at NEA, NParks, MSS and PUB. Also, many thanks to Minister Grace Fu for sharing Singapore's multiple efforts and achievements to-date in mitigating climate change.
One distinguishing mark in Singapore's policy-making approach is our ability to think generations when designing policies. At the price of popular vote, the Government of today has often bitten the bullet, knowing that some benefits will only be reaped by our future generations.
Today's topic on deepening Singapore’s efforts against climate change is one such Think-Generations policy. The trade-offs on current economic growth are real and tangible especially in light of the heavy blow the pandemic has dealt to our economy.
Yet, to safeguard Singapore's long-term well-being in ways that even the deepest financial reserves cannot, we must act today.
The start of 2021 saw several remarkable natural phenomena in Singapore, beginning with the non-stop rain that led to one of the highest recorded rainfalls in the past 39 years. We then saw mudslides and flooding in various parts of Singapore and temperatures dipped to a low of 21.1 degrees Celsius. These unpredictable weather patterns have increased in frequency the last decade in Singapore.
Later in the month, we then saw pink-purple algae bloom in Sentosa Waterways. The bloom is then believed to have caused the death of various fish and marine life in the waterway, a consistent consequence of similar blooms in the Mediterranean Sea.
All the above are not isolated, curious incidents, but are sure signs of the tangible negative impact climate change has on Singapore, as pointed out by other Members earlier. Singapore is now almost one degree Celsius hotter than our pre-industrial 1950s and heating up twice as fast as the rest of the world.
Without further intervention, Singapore may see our temperature increase from 1950s, hit 1.5 degrees Celsius within the next 20 years.
Today, Singapore remains in the top 30 nations in carbon emissions per capita out of 142, standing at 8.45 tonnes per capita.
For this reason and as party to the Paris Climate Agreement, we have set a target to peak at 65 million tonnes of carbon dioxide by 2030, a target I urge this House to review.
Even at a previously projected population size of 6.9 million by 2030, which the Government has clarified we are unlikely to reach, we are looking at a production of 9.4 tonnes per capita of carbon dioxide, an increase rather than a decrease of where we are currently.
I urge our Government to take even more determined measures to lower our per capita carbon emissions and to do so sooner, instead of waiting till 2050 to half this target. To maintain global temperature rise to under 1.5 degree Celsius, every year and every decade counts.
There are two mitigating strategies to a sustainable Singapore I would like to focus on. First, reducing our carbon dioxide emissions target. Second, increasing public appreciation and accessibility to nature and biodiversity.
First, reducing our carbon emissions. This can happen in two ways. The first, reducing production of new carbon emissions; and second, removing carbon emissions in the atmosphere.
Singapore has made great efforts and progress to reduce production of new carbon emissions, an essential mitigating strategy to climate change. They range from the Green Mark Scheme for sustainable building design, exploring renewable energy for transport and industry, extending research for new carbon capture and storage technologies, amongst many other initiatives.
I also want to applaud MOT's target to switch entirely to low emissions vehicles by 2040 or earlier.
And we should not miss out on strategies to remove carbon emissions by using natural carbon sinks that already exist in Singapore – our forests. Forests, wetlands and soils are some of the most effective natural carbon sinks. While Singapore has made concerted efforts to retain carbon sinks in our current marine and nature conservation areas, we should leverage to our advantage the remaining forests that make up approximately 23% of our land.
Our 1 Million Trees Movement is an excellent initiative to increase our green cover and help keep temperatures cool in Singapore. However, not all green cover is equal in their ability to sequester or absorb carbon. A 2015 study with Singapore shows that older trees sequester a significantly larger amount of carbon than younger trees we plant in new parks or sidewalks.
Additionally, it is the production of biomass in foliage, woods, roots and the soils that store the most carbon, all of which are found in abundance in forests and limited in other urban green spaces.
Afforestation and reforestation are great measures, but retaining what forests we have, even secondary ones, and allowing them to grow to their full ecological potential will allow far more effective carbon sequestering than planting new ones.
We can both plant new trees and retain the forested areas we have. We can complement our technological climate solutions with natural ones and support our remaining forests to do what they do best naturally to reduce Singapore's carbon emissions.
The tension between conservation and development is real in our land-scarce nation. Yet both are now equally essential for Singapore's growth.
For this to happen, nature must be integrated as living infrastructure vital to our development as a sustainable city state. Singapore should continue to explore other means such as upgrading older estates, redeveloping or innovating current parcels of land for new use.
Incentives can be given for current and new infrastructure to be re-designed or designed for multiple benefits and use, such as mixes of commercial uses with community farms, community centres and schools.
On our forests: the Clementi Forest covers 85 hectares and Ulu Pandan Forest, 33 hectares. It would be ecologically responsible of us to consider utilising portions of the 1,500 hectares across 17 golf courses, before reaching into our forest land. I am encouraged to hear from Minister Desmond Lee earlier today that by 2030, 400 hectares of golf course land will be taken back for redevelopment.
While future generations can choose to rebuild golf courses, forests that are removed now will take decades to grow and the connected biodiversity that we lose now, may never return.
Given the forests' cumulative benefits of stabilising carbon emissions over time, we must consider our forests as our last resort.
May I clarify that this does not mean that every plot of land that has existing vegetation and trees must never be used for development, but rather, I urge us to make deeper efforts as a nation to find ecologically better alternatives that also factor in and measure carbon sequestration of our land and other ecological measures as part of our decision-making.
Some may think that we are over-stating the value of forests and biodiversity to our future generations, and this brings me to my second point, that is, to increase public appreciation and accessibility to nature and biodiversity.
Studies have shown a positive correlation of exposure to nature to environmentally conscious behaviour. However, the amount of exposure Singaporeans have to biodiversity is limited as urban dwellers. We tend to have limited experience with nature around us beyond the roadside trees and carefully manicured parks. The impact on our population's environment comes as no surprise.
A young volunteer at my constituency commented that his first memory of close encounters with Singapore nature was the one during his NS days and that it was not too pleasant. Much more can be done to instill appreciation and wonder for nature within Singapore in our schools and community.
Some may be aware that Singapore holds species that can only be found in our country; the Johnson's freshwater crab, which thankfully is an unlikely candidate for Chili Crab, and a Tyrannomyrmex Rex is not the dinosaur, but a rare ant species named for its resemblance to the dinosaur.
I propose two ways to raise public appreciation and accessibility to nature and bio-diversity: first, through enhanced education. One benefit of the pandemic has been an increased awakening to our local nature reserves and parks. We should seize this opportunity to inform and interest our people on the bio-diversity in our midst. At the same time, cultivating love for nature and bio-diversity can start earlier through active education in our schools.
This should go beyond the occasional excursions to nature reserves or classroom lessons, but rather, regular, immersive experiences in nature similar to the curricula we see in forest schools in Europe, US and more recently in Singapore. An intentional and focused curricula on nature is no longer a good-to-have, but a necessity as we raise our next generation to be better stewards of our environment as Singaporeans and global citizens.
Such education should not be limited only to those who can afford private schools or enrichment programmes. May our children's first immersion to our tropical nature not be in the form of military service, but through a growing curriculum of nature as their living classrooms.
The second way to raise public appreciation and accessibility to nature and bio-diversity is through per capita access to nature. Singapore has set a goal to raise our green space per capita to eight square metres by 2030, just shy of the WHO's recommended minimum of nine square metres per capita, and far from the ideal 50 square metres. It is time to review this target and clarify "green spaces" as forests, nature parks and reserves, if we are to build an urban population that is not only healthy, but also increasingly environmentally conscious.
In light of the climate risks we now face in Singapore, I support the proposing team's proposal of the seventh pillar of Total Defence – which I had also prepared for this speech, but named it "Ecological Defence". Singapore owns capital not limited to the human and financial. Our natural capital, little as it may be, must be carefully invested-in even if the bulk of the benefits may only be reaped by generations to come. I appeal to this House to accelerate investment in our natural capital by creating a conducive environment for Singaporeans and for our companies to do so.
In summary, for the purpose of mitigating Singapore's carbon emissions, I propose that Singapore further lower our 2030 targets for carbon emissions, not only by deployment of technology, but also by preserving the forests we have, especially re-zoning Clementi and Ulu Pandan Forests as nature reserves while exploring other land space for our housing and industrial needs.
Secondly, I also propose raising environment consciousness in our populace through an early nature immersion for our children in education and for us to increase the amount of green space per capita. This will support long-term sustainability efforts in Singapore.
Building a sustainable Singapore is a responsibility shared by each of us. As individuals, we can all do more in Singapore's fight against climate change. The recent petition for Ulu Pandan Forest has brought to national attention this needful conversation on Singapore's commitment to steward nature and fight climate change. Many residents and I are grateful for Mr Sydney Cheong, not because he started the petition but because of his genuine care for our nature, lived out day to day.
My hope is that the conversations started will continue to extend to a larger national conversation on eco-friendly habits we intentionally adopt as individuals to make Singapore both a City in Nature and a sustainable home for all generations. With this, Mr Speaker, I support the Motion.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh.
Mr Speaker Sir, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Many of my colleagues have made suggestions to increase the carbon tax. I felt a bit of unease about it, because this will increase the cost of businesses, and will, perhaps, eventually be passed on to the consumers, hence increasing their financial burden. Any increase should be done progressively according to market needs, not at one go. Otherwise, prices will increase sharply and may cause hardship for the people.
At the same time, I agree with the suggestion by some of my colleagues that the Government can use incentives to encourage businesses to reduce carbon emission, adopt alternative clean energy sources and invest in them. The relevant investment can be used to offset carbon tax. This is akin to linking rising productivity with wage increases. By doing this, we can build a green economy and environment, a win-win situation.
Tonight, I would like to speak on two topics: charging points for electric vehicles and the data sharing mechanisms. First of all, I would like to reaffirm my support for a car-lite Singapore. However, cars will continue to play an important role in our transport system, so we must still build an infrastructure for cars, especially electric vehicles (EV). The Government is already planning to install 28,000 public charging points and is looking to work with the private sector to ramp up the infrastructure for electric vehicles.
I urge the Government to ensure that sustainability will be a major consideration in the process of building charging points. Charging point projects should only be awarded to contractors who factor in life-cycle costing and carbon footprint analysis, and provide points with energy efficiency certifications, such as those accredited by the US government with Energy Star. At viable locations, the charging stations should be powered up by solar panels.
Users should also have the options of paying via Parking.sg app and paper coupons in the event of poor network connection or lost mobile phones. They should also be able to see and compare the charging fees across different energy suppliers and charging locations. The pricing structure should use fees, demerit points and message nudges to dissuade drivers from leaving their EV at the charging lots once they complete charging.
(In English): Due to the higher costs of EVs, those in the middle and upper middle income groups are more likely to be the early adopters of EVs. As over 16% of Singaporeans live in condominiums, I urge the Government to introduce regulations and incentives for condos to provide EV charging infrastructure. For a start, new condos should be required to set aside a certain number of their parking spaces as charging points. Existing condos should be required to adapt existing spaces or create new spaces for charging points, with a longer grace period. For those living on landed properties, the Ministry should assist them to check and ensure that the junction boxes in their estates are able to support the charging of electric cars so that their homes do not suffer a blow-out or power trip.
The Government should also incentivise private developers to build publicly accessible charging points. Currently, with the low EV population, there is little incentive for private developers to build them. Financial incentives can be in the form of grants, tax breaks or subsidies. Public-sector data can be shared with the private sector to help them identify sources of demand, track usage patterns of Government-built charging points and disclose information on points with excessive charging demand. This will alleviate the pressure on the Government to build new charging points and also relieves congestion at the existing ones. In fact, the Government also can look into encouraging more innovations; not just fixed charging points, but can be flexible charging points, so on and so forth.
This brings me to my next point on the data sharing mechanisms. All businesses recognise that pooling data, or getting access to external sources of data, can help generate value through the identification of new sources of income and cost reduction methods. However, due to reasons of confidentiality and competition, data sharing is always a challenge.
The Government can step in by setting up data-sharing mechanisms within and across industries, particularly for key industrial sectors. The IMDA's Trusted Data Sharing Framework provides principles and examples that can serve as the basis of such agreements. Such a framework fosters collaboration and benefits companies in many ways.
The EU is already leading in such data-sharing systems. The Shared European Logistics Intelligent Information Space brought 37 logistics entities together to create a trusted data-sharing environment for the industry. In the Netherlands, the logistics and transport sector came together to develop iSHARE, a uniform set of agreements to identify and access management among organisations, allowing all parties to easily share data with business partners and downstream entities.
For Singapore, several industries could do something similar. Retail developers can share data on the reliability, efficiency and quality of common fittings, energy-saving technologies and other energy-consuming equipment. SMEs in the manufacturing sector could have a standardised digital system for reporting sustainability-related data points, which makes it easier for downstream clients to assess such data points and comply with their own sustainability requirements.
The benefits of such frameworks for climate change are significant. In addition to increases in efficiency and the reduction of resource consumption, such frameworks nurture the growth of specific sectors, nudge them towards digitisation and increased data sophistication.
Finally, I hope that the Government would also consider investing, and encourage investments, in EV battery research and development. EVs have not been adopted as quickly as we hope because potential buyers are wary of their higher costs and suffer from range anxiety – the worry that their EVs will run out of electricity before they can reach charging points. Imagine if one could just drive into an energy station and swap the car battery, similar to the option for many mobile phones. This would address the concerns over the time needed to charge the EVs, unlike the quick petroleum top up we can get for internal combustion engine vehicles.
I hope that the Ministry would consider my recommendations in support of the Motion.
Miss Cheryl Chan.
Mr Speaker, with your permission, may I propose an amendment to Mr Dennis Tan's first amendment?
Can I have a copy of the amendment, please? [A copy of the amendment was handed to Mr Speaker.] The amendment is in order. Do you have copies made for all the Members?
Yes, Mr Speaker. I have given copies to the Clerk for distribution.
Okay, we will distribute the amendment to the Members. [Copies of the amendment were distributed to hon Members.] Miss Chan, please move your amendment.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move that after the word "acknowledges" in Mr Tan's first amendment, to leave out the words "a climate emergency" and to insert the words "that climate change is a global emergency and a threat to mankind". Sir, let me explain the rationale to the amendment.
Today, Singapore makes up 0.1% of global emissions annually. Hence, declaring a climate emergency in Singapore alone is insufficient. Singapore has done a fair amount of balance of growth development and environmental protection, but actions against climate change must take place in Singapore and beyond our shores. Be it roadmaps, the type of investments, supply chains, energy demand and much more. Singapore is part of a larger international solution.
Thus, we need to look into these efforts globally and how they impact mankind. Singapore can certainly contribute our part and we must do so no matter how small or large we are. Having heard many suggestions and views from the Members on both sides of this House, we all agree that this is an area we should focus on and it is the actions and measures taken now that matter.
In the spirit of mutual improvement towards the same goal, I hope both sides of the House will support the amendment. This is what the proposed amendments to the Motion reads: "That this House acknowledges that climate change is a global emergency and threat to mankind and calls on the Government in partnership with the private sector, civil society and the people of Singapore to deepen and accelerate efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change and to embrace sustainability in the development of Singapore."
Mr Speaker, the decarbonisation journey is a multi-faceted and dynamic one. The efforts and commitment, however, should not be shy of determination and innovation from different stakeholders in society. Today, I will touch on two themes – the need for sustainability accounting on greenhouse gas emissions (GhG) and carbon emissions and preparing the talent pool to embark on this green economy in Singapore. It is my hope that we can achieve our goals in fighting climate change. Let us begin by discussing how through different aspects we can enable Singapore to be more focused in our actions and obtain more tangible outcomes.
First, greater accountability and consistent standards of measursing GhG and carbon emissions. The development of framework to deal with GhG and carbon emissions depends heavily on the ability to measure, account and document emissions. To be fair, many companies and industries have already introduced standards to measure carbon emissions as part of their Environment, Social and Governance (ESG) contributions. However, the pertinent issue is, there are many different standards and accounting practices being used, thereby making it difficult to do a cross-industry assessment or benchmark companies within the same sector.
Before the proposals, I will provide an understanding of what other jurisdictions are doing globally. Regulators globally are currently adopting a more prescriptive approach to ESG reporting by making such reporting mandatory rather than voluntary. In 2007, Sweden mandated state-owned companies to publish sustainability reports. In June 2020, the Bank of England also published its first climate risk disclosure report based on the framework by the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures, TCFT. More recently, regulators have begun to introduce ESG reporting obligations for financial market participants and not just companies. Europe is the first jurisdiction to mandate ESG reporting for asset managers. From March 2021, asset managers in Europe will be required to disclose how they integrate ESG factors into their investments.
Additionally, the UN Sustainable Development Goals (UNSDG) has called for the harmonisation of accounting standards for GhG to facilitate transparency, accuracy and comparability of climate actions.
Thus, I would want to propose concrete actions through the following.
One, companies must publish an annual ESG Report based on standardised reporting frameworks. Using standardised reporting frameworks, which I will elaborate on later, this would help establish a common criterion of measurement and consequently assessment in the annual carbon footprint of an organisation. Thus, facilitating baseline comparison across different companies and industries.
As a next step, companies can establish carbon emission reduction targets against their baseline and the industry's benchmark of an "ideal carbon footprint". This would better help Singapore companies take reference and adjust their goals using the industry benchmark. In a way, companies that are ahead of the curve in their decarbonisation plans and emission measurements can share best practices with those experiencing difficulties in meeting their targets. Further, with industry-wide efforts and Government directive, the focus can be placed in dedicating resources towards assisting companies in finding ways to remedy and improve their situation rather than penalising. It is the collaborative ecosystem approach that we want to encourage in the value chain and bring all parties towards the same goal.
Thinking longer term, with a more standardised and quantified approach, we as a nation will be better positioned to continuously review the adequacy of our carbon emission target and adopt technological solutions to accelerate our achievement towards the goal.
Two, MAS to provide a list of reporting frameworks that can be mandated for the annual ESG reporting. While there are many GhG accounting standards adopted by industries today, the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) and the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) appear to have the largest relevance and ease of adoption across industries. These frameworks are also recommended by UNSDG and the market participants. The frameworks have their respective strengths and identified subsets of ESG issues most applicable to financial performance. Additionally, it recognises that not all sustainability issues have equal weightage to each industry and the same sustainability issue may manifest differently across industries.
While the Singapore Exchange or SGX currently mandates ESG reporting, the reporting guidelines are loosely framed, which allows for much flexibility in reporting. Thus, hampering the ability in making meaningful interpretations and comparison of emissions that we urgently require to understand.
I am certainly cognisant that it will be tall order for many companies without the ability to administer and comply with a reporting framework. Hence, the suggestion is to begin mandating specific framework of reporting from the larger public listed companies, including the multinational companies. The larger companies in Singapore can take the lead in adopting the frameworks so at the start, the support will be given to provided induction for SMEs who may have limited knowledge about their supply chains or their production footprint. In the interim, more can be done educating and heighten awareness amongst the local SMEs on the significance of selected frameworks' applicability to their industries and the annual ESG Reporting method. The purpose is to gain their buy-in and not merely treating this as another regulation that needs to be adhered to or increasing cost of business. This way, we exercise prudence to ensure that the smaller SMEs have a roadmap to adopt the frameworks and compliance cost of ESG reporting is taken into consideration for future.
Next, getting everyone onboard the fight in climate change. The Green Economy is a new model of sustainable growth and an exciting one. However, there exists a gap today between interests of participants entering this economy and their ability to embark. Much needs to be done to develop Singapore's infrastructure and talent pool for sustainable accounting, should it eventually become legislated and the job opportunities in Green Economy blossom.
To bridge this gap, here are some suggestions of immediate actions that can be taken to enhance the quality and understanding of sustainability for those interested to participate in this field.
One, provide more variety in the courses at Institutes of Higher Learning for those who are interested in the field of sustainability field as a career. For example, financial accounting for sustainability, low carbon manufacturing and materials, food supply alternatives.
Two, facilitate early or mid-career moves towards jobs focused on environmental sustainability in partnerships with companies through structured mentorship and work transition programmes.
Three, work with industries and public sector to outline types of future green jobs and constantly align on skills and competencies that are required for such roles in emerging sectors
Four, develop understanding of sustainability as a career and professionalising the Green Economy as the current perception is that green jobs usually exist in non-profit organisations.
We can be accelerated at the beginning of this transformation through adding a pillar in the Industry Transformation Map (ITM) with specific focus on sustainability. The industry sectors with more advance capability around sustainability can provide the inputs to our strategies and guidelines on the roadmap for others to take reference. Over time, the sustainability element can then be incorporated directly under each of the 23 ITMs. This hybrid approach will enable MTI to better shape the development of training, programmes and infrastructures to create more eco-friendly business environment that supports inclusion of sustainability within the sectors over time.
With a sustainability ITM, sustainability will be put at the forefront and elevating its role and importance within businesses and our society. The public-private sector partnerships through economies of scale can be better deployed when there is visibility and definition of scope as opportunities arise across industries. Greater exchange of best practices, R&D and innovation can also be identified with greater synergy for collaborative work to drive the Green Economy. Further, data pooling will ultimately result in better design of processes, improved efficacy, shorten learning curve, drive fresh investments and reduce the overall carbon footprint.
Mr Speaker, Singapore has had past successes of building new industries, ranging from microelectronics, finance, pharmaceuticals to advance engineering, to name a few. I firmly believe we can achieve the same for the sustainability industry. Climate change is indeed a very existential threat to our world and our country today. The pressures will only increase as our demand for energy and as a developed economy continues. It is essential that we cultivate civic consciousness to the extent that sustainability becomes our way of life. So, not only do we need to get everyone on board to fight against climate change, we must lead the way and lay the foundations today. All hands on deck, let us navigate this adventure together! Sir, I stand in support of the Motion.
It has been proposed as a sub-amendment that after the word "acknowledges" in Mr Tan's first amendment, to leave out the words "a climate emergency" and there to insert the words "that climate change is a global emergency and a threat to mankind".
We are having a simultaneous debate. Members may wish to speak on all the amendments before the House.
The Question is, "That the words proposed to be left out, be there left out.”
Sir, I grew up watching Captain Planet and the Planeteers. Some of the younger Members in this House will have no idea what I am talking about. It was a cartoon series about protecting our planet. I loved it. This is how the opening went, "Our world is in peril. Gaia, the spirit of the Earth, can no longer stand the terrible destruction plaguing our planet. She sends five magic rings to five special young people: Kwame, from Africa, with the power of Earth; from North America, Wheeler, with the power of Fire, from the Soviet Union – yes that is how old this cartoon is – Linka, with the power of Wind; from Asia, Gi, with the power of Water; and from South America, Ma-Ti, with the power of Heart. When the five powers combine, they summon Earth's greatest champion, Captain Planet."
I also remember the show's catchy theme song, but I remember Speaker's Facebook post about not getting any ideas about singing in Parliament, so I shall not sing it. Plus, it is getting pretty late.
Thank you. [Laughter.]
I also remember one sentence, something Captain Planet said over and over again: "The power is yours."
As I shared in my opening speech, Singaporeans, more than ever, believe in Captain Planet's message. They believe the power to protect the planet is theirs. So, they speak up and take action. This makes me optimistic.
But our optimism must not take us away from our urgency. Greenhouse gas emissions reached a new high in 2019.
The Paris Agreement aimed to cap this century’s temperature increase at 1.5-degree Celsius. But instead we are on track for three-degree Celsius change. We are hurtling towards extreme climate change and we must urgently change course.
The Government must help by deepening and accelerating our efforts against climate change. Sir, in summary, the GPC for Sustainability and the Environment is calling for:
One, post-COVID, increase the carbon tax quantum and regularise future reviews.
Two, professionalise the carbon accounting and reporting industry.
Three, incorporate sustainability into the Industry Transformation Map scheme or have an ITM for the sustainability sector.
Four, enhance the Public Sector Taking the Lead in Environmental Sustainability initiative with higher and expanded standards.
Five, introduce rules and incentives to promote the building of publicly accessible charging points by private developers.
Six, revise the Green Mark scheme to increase standards on carbon intensiveness.
Seven, expand climate education in school curricula.
Eight, introduce data-sharing mechanisms on clean energy technologies and energy efficiency.
Nine, increase public access to emissions data of top-emitting private companies and public entities.
Ten, and lastly, add Climate Defence as a seventh pillar of Total Defence in Singapore.
These 10 recommendations will help us meet and, I believe, exceed our commitment under the Paris Climate Agreement.
Sir, many Members have stepped forward today. All of them delivered passionate speeches. I will not be able to do justice to everyone's speeches but let me summarise some themes of their proposals.
The first theme is nature. Members stressed the importance of protecting our natural carbon sinks. Miss Rachel Ong shared the science about trees and alerted us that keeping existing trees is far more effective than planting new ones, though both are important steps.
Mr Dennis Tan asked for additional legal protection for secondary forests. Ms Nadia Samdin, Prof Koh Lian Pin and Miss Rachel Ong rightly noted that our corals, our mangroves, and indeed, our forests powerfully trap carbon and help us fight climate change.
The three Members also stressed the importance of helping Singaporeans learn and become more in touch with nature.
This brings me to the second theme: education. Our youths are our future. For them, Ms Nadia Samdin discussed installing sustainability as a core pillar of our education system.
Education should also involve vocational training. Miss Cheryl Chan suggested preparing young adults so they have the interest, skills, knowledge and connections needed for the green sector.
But education is not just for the young. Mr Christopher de Souza discussed this, his exciting vision for Ulu Pandan as a nature surplus neighbourhood, with nature trails, community gardens and food composting sites. Ms Hany Soh painted a colourful portrait of her Woodgrove community and discussed how all Singaporeans could learn about sustainability through hands-on experience and convenient technologies.
The third theme for today is incentives and regulations – in other words, carrots and sticks. All Members proposed solutions that would limit carbon intensive activities but they also made sure to suggest ways to soften the impact and spark the economy.
Mr Don Wee discussed using carbon tax revenues to grow our industries and protect our households. Assoc Prof Jamus Lim similarly asked to give out a green dividend from our carbon tax revenues. Mr Gan Thiam Poh suggested sharing Government data to help the private sector figure out where to build electric vehicle charging points. Mr Gerald Giam asked to extend subsidies and support for petrochemical workers as the industry shrinks its global workforce.
Mr Leon Perera proposed growing our green industry, particularly those dealing in professional services, like environmental impact consulting and carbon trading verification. Ms Poh Li San suggested a circular financing system to help the construction industry adapt to tougher Green Mark standards. Miss Cheryl Chan asked for increased support and a more generous timeline for SMEs to file ESG reports. Mr Louis Chua asked for greater reliance on solar energy and cited statistics to show how the clean energy sector can create good jobs for Singapore. Mr Henry Kwek pitched solutions like investments in geothermal solutions and carbon offsets to help the economy adjust to decarbonisation.
Together, these balanced recommendations show that Members want Singapore to be both green and prosperous, not just one or the other.
Sir, Mr Leong Mun Wai expressed broad support for our 10 topics. I thank him for that. He also raised some general concerns about trade-offs. As I mentioned, many Members have been proactive in raising these trade-offs in their speeches and propose specific ideas on how to overcome them.
There is no disagreement that a healthy economy and a healthy environment need to go hand in hand and I encourage Mr Leong to continue sharing his ideas on how to manage these trade-offs. Mr Leong said that forest protection and climate adaptation were not included in the Motion's 10 topics. I think Mr Leong will find that several Members today have raised proposals on both topics, myself included. The 10 topics are not an exhaustive list.
Mr Leong also asked whether EVs would reduce emissions in Singapore's context. The answer to this is yes. The E-mobility Technology Roadmap published by the Energy Research Institute at NTU looked at the data and found that by 2050, EVs are expected to reduce emissions by up to 64% in Singapore.
Sir, I thank Mr Dennis Tan and Miss Cheryl Chan for their proposed amendments. I agree with Mr Tan on the importance of civil society. I spent more than two decades of my life as a civil society activist. We have not just recognised the role of civil society but we have actively engaged them throughout the year long consultation. They have played a crucial role in this Motion and, as I mentioned, in my opening speech, this Motion responds to their call.
The original Motion's statement focused on the three Ps that we are all familiar with – the public, private and people sector. Having said that, I support the inclusion of the word "civil society" into the Motion's statement.
Sir, the Motion's statement today is also about actions rather than what climate change is. We already know what it is. There is no debate about that.
As I have shared in my opening speech, Prime Minister Lee has already stressed that climate change is "one of the gravest challenges facing humankind." This Government already recognises that the existential threat of climate change is an issue that nations cannot ignore.
I believe all of us in this House are on the same page but, Sir, we drafted the Motion's statement that reflects actions. That is important. We have drafted it that way to focus on actions and how we can deepen and accelerate efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change. That was my preference but I recognise the merits of the proposed amendments and I agree with the rationale.
I thank Miss Chan for the proposed amendments of acknowledging that climate change is a global emergency and a threat to mankind. I believe this will reflect the climate change issue more holistically and focus again on action on how we all need to work together in this global community. I hope that all of us in this House will support the proposed amendments.
Sir, I will also like to thank Minister Grace Fu for responding positively to our proposals and concerns and for her strong and continued commitment in ensuring that sustainability is at the heart of everything we do.
Indeed, sustainability has and always will be a part of Singapore’s DNA.
I thank Minister for sharing about our strong Climate Action Plan today and most importantly the good news that we have a new Singapore Green Plan 2030.
This whole-of-nation movement to advance the sustainability agenda in Singapore is an important one and I am glad that the plan is a multi-Ministry effort, and that it will be a major policy priority for this Government. That really is good news.
To conclude, I would like to refer to a point Mr Seah Kian Peng made. As part of his ask to include Climate Defence as a pillar of Total Defence, he argued that Singapore needs to take bold, unprecedented steps. There must be a new willingness, a new resolution by the Government to do things differently.
I could not agree more with him. Sustainability must become a core part of our nation’s development. It will take time, but every corner of policy-making – and indeed way of life – must transform to match our aspiration towards sustainability.
Sir, I thank all the Members who spoke up on this important issue. My heartfelt thanks also to the GPC for Sustainability and the Environment, the Young PAP's Climate Change Policy Team, my Climate Change Team, business leaders, researches, activists and fellow Singaporeans who all contributed to this Motion and the recommendations.
Sir, the Government plays an important role to co-lead, to nurture, to protect our environment and to set policies and enforce legislation in this battle against climate change.
Each one of us in this global community also plays an important role and by working together, this battle is strengthened and this fight for our planet becomes stronger.
Sir, I often push for changes in this House but there is finally one change I am not pushing for and that is climate change.
Let us make sure that climate change becomes a thing of the past, something our children learn about in this history lessons. Sir, the power is indeed ours. Let us change our mindset, our behaviours and our policies to move the needle on climate change.
Let us focus on action and deepen and accelerate efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change, and to embrace sustainability in the development of Singapore. Thank you. [Applause.]
Before I open up for clarifications and comments, there is carbon footprint that comes from long sessions of Parliament. Mr Dennis Tan. [Laughter.]
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Let me get organised because I cannot really write so I could not really take notes.
I thank the Member for Fengshan, Miss Cheryl Chan, for the amendment. At first glance, I have a concern that the amendment pertaining to the word "That the climate change is a global emergency" seems to have de-emphasised the importance of climate change in Singapore. But I think I do recall that Miss Chan did mention something along the lines of not just in Singapore so I believe we are in agreement that, as many Members in the House today have expressed concern of that climate change, how it affects Singapore, how it affects the world and the efforts that all of us, locally and all round the world, need to make. So, on that note, I am prepared to accept these amendments.
Miss Chan also mentioned about the term "a threat to mankind". Perhaps, it should be more appropriately worded "as a threat to humankind" or, in fact, "a threat to all life on earth". That is all I have to say. Thank you.
Any other clarifications and comment?
Okay, we have now finally come to the conclusion of the debate. I shall put the question to the House for decision. We have an amendment by Miss Cheryl Chan and two amendments proposed by Mr Dennis Tan. We will deal with the sub-amendment first. Miss Cheryl Chan's amendment is that after the word "acknowledges" in Mr Tan's first amendment to leave out the words "a climate emergency" and there to insert the words "That climate change is a global emergency and a threat to mankind".
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out, be there left out", put and agreed to.
Question, "That the words proposed by Miss Cheryl Chan to be inserted, be there inserted", put and agreed to.
Miss Cheryl Chan's amendment to the original first amendment by Mr Dennis Tan has been agreed to.
We come now to the original amendment, as amended, which is after the words “That this House” to insert the words “acknowledges that climate change is a global emergency and a threat to mankind and”.
Question, "That amendment number (1) as amended be made", put and agreed to.
The second amendment is in line 2, after the words “private sector” and insert a comma and the words “civil society”.
*Question, "That amendment number (2) be made", put and agreed to. (proc text)]
The amendments have been agreed to. The original Motion, as amended, is now before the House.
Original Motion, as amended, put and agreed to.
[(proc text) Resolved, "That this House acknowledges that climate change is a global emergency and a threat to mankind and calls on the Government, in partnership with the private sector, civil society and the people of Singapore, to deepen and accelerate efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change, and to embrace sustainability in the development of Singapore."*
Leader.
PAPERCUTS