Singapores Climate Change Policy and Carbon Emissions

Natasha Hamilton-Hart

OVERVIEW
Aims of Singapores strategy Singapores emissions
Controversy over the data Trends and projections Sources of emissions

What would a responsible climate change strategy for Singapore look like?

Climate Change (the very basics)

Change in climate due to rising concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere CO2 is main component accounting for rise
From ~285 ppm to 379 ppm

Due to burning fossil fuels and loss of carbon stores To have 50:50 chance of avoiding catastrophic change, need to halve global emissions - stabilize at 450 ppm IPCC reports are lowest common denominator 450 ppm target rejected by many as too high Basic science of emissions climate change is not in doubt

SINGAPORES NATIONAL STRATEGY

SNCCS - Singapores National Climate Change Strategy Available online - chapter 3 on mitigation Long list of initiatives What are the actual aims? Not aimed at reducing emissions
In line with Singapores international position Fiction of being a developing country

AIMS OF THE SNCCS

Aimed at cost-competitiveness
energy efficiency - minimal government incentives

Aimed at promoting GDP growth

clean energy as a new economic sector CDM business under the Kyoto Protocol

Aimed at making you think Singapore is doing a good job

complacent and self congratulatory misleading statistics

LOOKING GOOD: CO2 INTENSITY

0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 CO2 INTENSITY 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005

LOOKING AT WHAT MATTERS: CO2 EMISSIONS

45000 40000 35000 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 CO2 EMISSIONS KT

WHY ENERGY INTENSITY IS IRRELEVANT

CO2 intensity: emissions per dollar of GDP Fairly good measure of cost-efficiency of the economy Terrible measure of impact on climate change! Climate change is driven by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere The CO2:GDP measure is an attempt to avoid responsibility (Singapore not the only one to use it - copying U.S.)

SINGAPORES CO2 EMISSIONS

How many tonnes of CO2 emitted in 2006? MEWR: 41,522 kt (thousand tonnes) IEA: 43, 130 kt EIA (US Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration): 133,880 kt
or 141,100 kt

SHOULD BUNKER FUELS BE EXCLUDED?

Discrepancies due to exclusion of marine bunker fuels and sale of jet fuel for international aviation (MEWR) Singapore: worlds largest marine bunkering centre: ~ 21 million tonnes of bunker oil sold to ships c. 2003 Exclusion granted under UNFCCC but the extra 100,000 kt of CO2 do not disappear from the atmosphere bunkering, port and air hub role = significant part of Singapores economy, profits - not free service to rest of world

Emissions Trends
MEWR: nearly doubled 1990-2005 EIA: more than doubled MEWR: increasing at 2.8% per year = 47% increase from 2006 by 2020
160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 1990 2000 Millions of metric tonnes

Sources: Transport
Transport: 19% of total emissions Vehicle numbers up 3% per year since 1990 (more than doubled) 2008: 894,682
733,235 if exclude motorbikes and buses

2009: quota to be reduced to 1.5% increase p.a. = only 16% increase over next 10 years Perverse incentives in LTA strategies

Sources: Electricity Generation

48% of total emissions
Electricity Generated by Natural Gas 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 19% 29% 44% 60% 69% 74% 2006 78% 2007 79%

Natural gas: 40% less CO2 than oil fuel = switch to gas generation accounts for much of increased CO2 efficiency to date No further scope for ongoing reductions from this conversion Power companies have no incentive to reduce electricity consumption!

Air transport
Government policy targets aggressive increase Budget terminal 2006: extra 2.7 to 5 million passengers Terminal 3: 2008: capacity for extra 20 million
Passengers Weekly Flights 1981 8.1 mn ~1,200 1990 15.6 mn ~2,000 2005/06 32.4 mn >4,600

Carbon emissions from flying vs. other transport

Building
Construction is a CO2 polluting industry Energy + cement production 2007: 116 en bloc sales Better buildings?
Install modern air conditioning - more efficient

In many cases, worse buildings

Higher light/heat absorption Loss of natural airflow, shade

Must factor in emissions from construction and materials

Sshh the Oil Industry

Total crude oil refining capacity ~ 1.3 million barrels per day (bbl/d).
ExxonMobil: 605,000-bbl/d Royal Dutch/Shell: 458,000-bbl/d SPC: 273,000-bbl/d

EDB: Singapore needs one more.. Most refined product is exported but.. Refining is a high emissions activity Singapores stake in the oil industry

What would a responsible policy look like?

It would be honest Stop presenting fantasy of Singapore as a developing country Stop presenting meaningless positive indicators like CO2 intensity of GDP Headline the bottom line: global CO2 emissions must halve to avoid catastrophic climate change
In the next ten years

Do Singapores Emissions Matter?

Small part in global emissions Why not free-ride?
(or make the most of sinking together)

The Costs of Singapores Rising Emissions

Being part of the problem No credibility in international negotiations
cannot call for others to make cuts

Disproportionate loss for international efforts Singapore has more than 0.2% of the worlds expertise, diplomatic skill and influence Disastrous growth model for Asia

Can Singapore Cut Its Emissions?

Official stand: Singapores special circumstances mean it has no other options small size, urbanized, industrialized Emissions a function of: 1. population 2. GDP 3. Energy: GDP 4. CO2: Energy

1. Population
rarely mentioned in connection with climate change official policy is to increase the need for this increase is wide open to scrutiny has not been rigorously examined or defended

2. GDP growth
Official policy rules out anything that might bring down growth Singapore c. 2007 GDP ($Sing): $243 billion Population 4.6 (total), 3.6 (residents) Per capita GDP $67,500 In US$, PPP terms: $29,633 (UN); $52,000 (CIA) However measured, there is scope to be more concerned about quality of growth and distribution of GDP

3. Energy : GDP ratio

Main target of the SNCCS But very limited initiatives, often at crosspurposes with other trends Much more scope to reduce energy use Just a few examples..
do not need to increase private cars or licence so many taxis could make cycling far more attractive huge potential to reduce electricity consumption

4. CO2 : Energy Ratio

ie, shift away from fossil fuels official policy is dismissive this is premature few (no?) independent technical studies

The bottom line..

Large global emissions cuts are necessary to avoid catastrophic change Cost of cutting emissions is relatively modest Inaction due to the distribution of cuts and costs Countries with very low per capita incomes and/or dysfunctional governments have a case that they should not/cannot cut Singapore is neither poor nor lacking in capacity! Contributing to international action means accepting the need for cuts in Singapores emissions Singapore does have scope to reduce its emissions .. but it may mean letting go of some sacred cows